• 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

Did Bill Clinton deserve to be impeached?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 9 60.0%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    15

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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.
The impeachment process didn't address apologies, just the crimes.
Note that Martha Stewart didn't do anything inappropriate in her trading.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The impeachment process didn't address apologies, just the crimes.
Note that Martha Stewart didn't do anything inappropriate in her trading.
Insider Trading is a penally relevant juridic situation.
Adultery is not.
There is an abyssal difference.;)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Insider Trading is a penally relevant juridic situation.
Adultery is not.
There is an abyssal difference.;)
She wasn't guilty of that though.
Trading stocks is legal, so they were apparently after something else.

The real difference is that Bill was a beloved (by Democrats) President,
so crimes would be excused. Martha Stewart is rather despised here.
The law favors the powerful, particularly when they're popular.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You should educate yourself about the particulars of this case.
Especially given that your presented definition was not in play in this case.

Care to try again?
You should familiar yourself with the link I posted.
And then consider that it's a commonly used definition in both court & ordinary parlance.
Bill did the deed.

About special definitions....
If someone defines a "tail" as a "leg".
A dog still has 4 legs.
This is because a tail is not a leg.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
You should familiar yourself with the link I posted.
And then consider that it's a commonly used definition in both court & ordinary parlance.
Bill did the deed.

About special definitions....
If someone defines a "tail" as a "leg".
A dog still has 4 legs.
This is because a tail is not a leg.
You really should read the link I presented before making an even bigger fool of yourself over it.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You really should read the link I presented before making an even bigger fool of yourself over it.
I'm comfortable being a fool.
How about you?

But you're missing the point that Bill did indeed have both "sexual relations" &
"sexual intercourse" with Monica. Having a special ad hoc definition used in
one case doesn't change the general use of language.
I tire of people trying to obfuscate, prevaricate, & generally trash truth by tactics
like questioning the definition of "is", or creating mischievous ad hoc definitions.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
I'm comfortable being a fool.
But you're missing the point that Bill did indeed have both "sexual relations" & "sexual intercourse" with Monica. Having a special ad hoc definition used in one case doesn't change the general use of language.
I tire of people trying to obfuscate, prevaricate, & generally trash truth by tactics like questioning the definition of "is", or creating arcane temporary ad hoc definitions.
Interestingly enough, your point has little to nothing to do with tangent you dropped in on.
So it is not that I am "missing" your point.
It is that your point is irrelevant to this specific case.

I dislike the technical semantics game that was played in this case.
But it was the prosecutor who screwed that pooch
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Interestingly enough, your point has little to nothing to do with tangent you dropped in on.
So it is not that I am "missing" your point.
It is that your point is irrelevant to this specific case.

I dislike the technical semantics game that was played in this case.
But it was the prosecutor who screwed that pooch
Exactly!
(Mostly)
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

I think politicians should be prosecuted when they break the law. My only point is that it's a far worse thing when one's motive for breaking the law is monetary gain. It's a different kettle of fish.

Besides, Stewart's lie was to cover up a crime, but in the Clinton-Lewinsky matter, there was no actual crime to cover up. But he lied about it anyway, and that's how he got into trouble.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I think politicians should be prosecuted when they break the law. My only point is that it's a far worse thing when one's motive for breaking the law is monetary gain. It's a different kettle of fish.
Spoken like a true socialist...making money is the real sin.
But as I see things, whether the motive is money, power,
loyalty, saving face, vengeance, or hatred, it's still a crime.

I'll make an exception for whistle blowers. They serve a
very useful function in a freedom loving society. Even
Sarah Palin is now advocating for Assange's pardon.
Whoodah thunk it.
Besides, Stewart's lie was to cover up a crime....
She wasn't prosecuted or convicted of any underlying crime though.
....but in the Clinton-Lewinsky matter, there was no actual crime to cover up. But he lied about it anyway, and that's how he got into trouble.
Same for Martha Stewart.
The double standard....Martha made money (the real sin),
while Bill diddled Monica for free. Partisans...they too easily
defend their own when guilty of crimes...there's always an
excuse.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Spoken like a true socialist...making money is the real sin.
But as I see things, whether the motive is money, power,
loyalty, saving face, vengeance, or hatred, it's still a crime.

Making money is not a sin as long as it's done legally, ethically, honorably, and morally. However, capitalists and society in general may only concern themselves with what is legal, which is how lawyers end up making so much money.

I think if capitalism was fully required to operate above-board, honestly, transparently, and morally - without one iota of corruption whatsoever - the whole system would collapse overnight.

I remember an episode of Sliders where they were in an alternate reality where everyone had to wear these collars around their necks. If anyone told a lie, they'd get an electric shock. Imagine a world where capitalists and lawyers were required to wear collars like that. Our system couldn't survive. The current system depends on deception and amorality. That's the Achilles Heel of capitalism.

I'll make an exception for whistle blowers. They serve a
very useful function in a freedom loving society. Even
Sarah Palin is now advocating for Assange's pardon.
Whoodah thunk it.

The persecution of whistleblowers pretty much proves my point. It sends a clear message that capitalists feel endangered any time someone tells the truth about the system. Anyone who is afraid of truth obviously thrives on lies.

She wasn't prosecuted or convicted of any underlying crime though.

Martha Stewart - Wikipedia

On June 4, 2003, Stewart was indicted by the government on nine counts, including charges of securities fraud and obstruction of justice. Stewart voluntarily stepped down as CEO and Chairwoman of MSLO, but stayed on as chief creative officer. She went on trial in January 2004. Prosecutors showed that Bacanovic had ordered his assistant to tell Stewart that the CEO of ImClone, Samuel D. Waksal, was selling all his shares in advance of an adverse Food and Drug Administration ruling. The FDA action was expected to cause ImClone shares to decline.[51]

Monica Beam, a shareholder of MSLO, also brought a derivative suit against Stewart and other directors and officers of the company. It went before the Supreme Court of Delaware in 2004 and was ultimately dismissed.[52]

After a highly publicized six-week jury trial, Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators, and was sentenced in July 2004 to serve a five-month term in a federal correctional facility and a two-year period of supervised release (to include five months of electronic monitoring).[51]

Bacanovic and Waksal were also convicted of federal charges and sentenced to prison terms.[53][54] Stewart also paid a fine of $30,000.[55]

In August 2006, the SEC announced that it had agreed to settle the related civil case against Stewart. Under the settlement, Stewart agreed to disgorge $58,062 (including interest from the losses she avoided), as well as a civil penalty of three times the loss avoided, or $137,019. She also agreed to a five-year ban from serving as a director, CEO, CFO, or any other officer role responsible for preparing, auditing, or disclosing financial results of any public company.[56] In June 2008, the UK Border Agency refused to grant her a visa to enter the United Kingdom because of her criminal conviction for obstructing justice. She had been planning to speak at the Royal Academy on fashion and leisure industry matters.[57]

She was also found guilty of conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Same for Martha Stewart.
The double standard....Martha made money (the real sin),
while Bill diddled Monica for free.

Insider trading is illegal. Now, maybe the broker and the ImClone CEO were also guilty, and the broker's assistant was apparently the one who spilled the beans on Martha's involvement.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Making money is not a sin as long as it's done legally, ethically, honorably, and morally. However, capitalists and society in general may only concern themselves with what is legal, which is how lawyers end up making so much money.
So it can be done ethically, but "in general" tis otherwise?
What did Martha do to earn your ire?
I think if capitalism was fully required to operate above-board, honestly, transparently, and morally - without one iota of corruption whatsoever - the whole system would collapse overnight.
We should require the same of politics & governance.
Business does a much better job than they.
I remember an episode of Sliders where they were in an alternate reality where everyone had to wear these collars around their necks. If anyone told a lie, they'd get an electric shock. Imagine a world where capitalists and lawyers were required to wear collars like that. Our system couldn't survive. The current system depends on deception and amorality. That's the Achilles Heel of capitalism.
I engage in no deception whatsoever, yet I make money.
Besides..."Sliders" was a (not very good) fictional TV show.
The persecution of whistleblowers pretty much proves my point. It sends a clear message that capitalists feel endangered any time someone tells the truth about the system. Anyone who is afraid of truth obviously thrives on lies.
Capitalists aren't the one's prosecuting whistleblowers.
Assange, Manning, Snowden...they've all been persecuted
by government, eg, Obama, Trump.
Martha Stewart - Wikipedia
She was also found guilty of conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
But not of the insider trading charge that was the pretext for pursuing her.
Insider trading is illegal.
Why do you believe she was convicted of that?
Now, maybe the broker and the ImClone CEO were also guilty, and the broker's assistant was apparently the one who spilled the beans on Martha's involvement.
Are you claiming she was found guilty of that?
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Clinton was impeached for lying to a court under oath. Which he certainly did. He was not impeached for anything else. Not for a “private matter”. Not for partisanship. Not for “sex”. For lying. A court found him in contempt for lying and attempting to pervert the course of Justice. He was also disbarred from practicing law in both Arkansas, for period of five years, and from appearing as a lawyer before the U.S. Supreme Court.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
So it can be done ethically, but "in general" tis otherwise?
What did Martha do to earn your ire?

I have no ire against Martha. I was just drawing a distinction, since you seemed to suggest that Stewart's case was comparable to Clinton's.

We should require the same of politics & governance.
Business does a much better job than they.

Yes, I agree that we should require the same of politicians (although that was implied when I included lawyers in my hypothetical scenario).

When you say business does a much better job, what tasks are you referring to?

I engage in no deception whatsoever, yet I make money.
Besides..."Sliders" was a (not very good) fictional TV show.

True, Sliders was marginal, although it did have its moments. It is an interesting hypothetical, though, about the collars which shock people whenever they lie. It's an interesting idea to consider just how much our society depends upon lies and deception. I'm not referring to the average Joe, however, as most common people are generally honest.

Capitalists aren't the one's prosecuting whistleblowers.
Assange, Manning, Snowden...they've all been persecuted
by government, eg, Obama, Trump.

A government controlled by capitalists...

But not of the insider trading charge that was the pretext for pursuing her.

In other words, they got a report that a crime was committed, so they investigated.

Why do you believe she was convicted of that?

She wasn't convicted of that, but that was what brought about the investigation.

Are you claiming she was found guilty of that?

In the end, no, but she was indicted. Your claim was that she wasn't prosecuted for anything other than lying, but that was clearly not the case.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I have no ire against Martha. I was just drawing a distinction, since you seemed to suggest that Stewart's case was comparable to Clinton's.
"Seemed to suggest"?
I've repeatedly been trying to say they're quite comparable.
Yes, I agree that we should require the same of politicians (although that was implied when I included lawyers in my hypothetical scenario).
While politicians tend to be lawyers, most of the latter aren't the former.
When you say business does a much better job, what tasks are you referring to?
There's much greater transparency, ethics, & choice with business than with government.
But I expect some disagreement on that from some here.
A government controlled by capitalists...
Many in government aren't from the world of capitalism, eg, Obama.
But our problem with politicians & their misbehavior isn't calitalism.
It's lack of interest in, detection of, & prosecution for their crimes.

Countries without capitalism are hardly places where leaders are better.
In other words, they got a report that a crime was committed, so they investigated.
Stewart, Clinton, Trump, Flynn, etc.
But liberals here tend to object when it happens to their own.
She wasn't convicted of that, but that was what brought about the investigation.
As it was with Clinton.
In the end, no, but she was indicted. Your claim was that she wasn't prosecuted for anything other than lying, but that was clearly not the case.
Technically, you're correct. But the judge threw out the charge.
To me, this means she wasn't prosecuted for it.
Judge dismisses major charge against Stewart

Comey's tossed out theory.....
Ref...
Lessons of Martha Stewart Case
Comey didn’t charge Stewart with insider trading. Instead, he claimed that Stewart’s public protestations of innocence were designed to prop up the stock price of her own company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, and thus constituted securities fraud. Stewart was also charged with making false statements to federal officials investigating the insider trading charge — a charge they never pursued. In essence, Stewart was prosecuted for “having misled people by denying having committed a crime with which she was not charged,” as Cato Institute Senior Fellow Alan Reynolds put it.
 

Audie

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.


"Induced". Get real.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
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.

Not democrats
 
Top