• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

While we're prosecuting the previous administration

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Should we open criminal investigations into the Clinton/Gore administration's foreign campaign contributions from China, especially to see if they resulted in favorable policy?

I mean, after all, if laws were broken -- and these are serious allegations -- they should be held accountable, correct?

It's not facetious. It's a serious question.

If you say "no," please explain why.
 
Last edited:
Dangit. Will a mod please add a yes/no poll? :doh
 
Should we open criminal investigations into the Clinton/Gore administration's foreign campaign contributions from China, especially to see if they resulted in favorable policy?

I mean, after all, if laws were broken -- and these are serious allegations -- they should be held accountable, correct?

It's not facetious. It's a serious question.

If you say "no," please explain why.

I don't know much about that China contribution information, but if it's true, is that really illegal?

I would say that its almost irrelevant now, and I have come accept the fact that candidates might or might not get outside contributions.

What the Bush admin allegedly did is way more serious and worth being given a full on trial.

So I would say no, was that contribution issue even confirmed?
 
Should we open criminal investigations into the Clinton/Gore administration's foreign campaign contributions from China, especially to see if they resulted in favorable policy?

If you say "no," please explain why.
Well, of course not.
Only Republicans should be accountable for breaking the law.
Democrats? Well, thats OK, because its for a good reason.
 
I don't know much about that China contribution information, but if it's true, is that really illegal?

I would say that its almost irrelevant now, and I have come accept the fact that candidates might or might not get outside contributions.

What the Bush admin allegedly did is way more serious and worth being given a full on trial.

So I would say no, was that contribution issue even confirmed?

Accepting foreign campaign contributions is illegal. What's worse is that Clinton pushed for and got Most Favored Nation status for China after that election, which could constitute a quid pro quo, and bump it up to the level of bribery.

So, it's possible that the President of the United States was, by bribery, under the thrall of a foreign power.

Yeah, I'd say that's as LEAST as serious as waterboarding some terrorists. :roll:

Was it "confirmed"? You need an actual serious investigation first. But it sure didn't look good.
 
Every crime that government officials commit or are suspected of committing should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I can't even begin to understand why party affiliation should have anything to do with it. Well, I do know why, but it borders on treason.

But in that specific incident, there was a Justice Dept. investigation which resulted in 22 criminal convictions. There were also House and Senate investigations that pretty much went nowhere. Apparently they were unable to find evidence that Clinton himself was involved and/or committed any crime.
 
Accepting foreign campaign contributions is illegal. What's worse is that Clinton pushed for and got Most Favored Nation status for China after that election, which could constitute a quid pro quo, and bump it up to the level of bribery.

So, it's possible that the President of the United States was, by bribery, under the thrall of a foreign power.

Yeah, I'd say that's as LEAST as serious as waterboarding some terrorists. :roll:

Was it "confirmed"? You need an actual serious investigation first. But it sure didn't look good.

Ok well if that's the case, and I now know more about it than before, then I change my answer to yes. Like someone said above me, every government crime or scandal should be investigated.
 
What the Bush admin allegedly did is way more serious and worth being given a full on trial.

Hmmmm....Bush, for the sake of national security, implemented an enhanced interrogation routine that was deemed legal by his staff of legal advisors.

Clinton took campaign cash from China in exchange for military secrets.

Oh, clearly what GWB did was sooo much worse.:roll:
 
Hmmmm....Bush, for the sake of national security, implemented an enhanced interrogation routine that was deemed legal by his staff of legal advisors.
What if a President's staff of legal advisors deem that rape is legal? Is everything they say automatically correct just because they are lawyers?

Clinton took campaign cash from China in exchange for military secrets.
Three investigations could not conclude that, so I don't understand how you can be so certain.
 
Hmmmm....Bush, for the sake of national security, implemented an enhanced interrogation routine that was deemed legal by his staff of legal advisors.

Clinton took campaign cash from China in exchange for military secrets.

Oh, clearly what GWB did was sooo much worse.:roll:

Good someone agrees with me. :mrgreen:
 
But in that specific incident, there was a Justice Dept. investigation which resulted in 22 criminal convictions. There were also House and Senate investigations that pretty much went nowhere. Apparently they were unable to find evidence that Clinton himself was involved and/or committed any crime.

Sure, there were convictions on bank fraud, withholding evidence, onstruction of justice, and other ancillary stuff. But I'm talking about the meat of the issue.
 
What if a President's staff of legal advisors deem that rape is legal? Is everything they say automatically correct just because they are lawyers?

The lawyers didn't "deem" "torture" to be legal.


Three investigations could not conclude that, so I don't understand how you can be so certain.

There was no serious criminal investigation of anyone but low-hanging fruit.
 
Should we open criminal investigations into the Clinton/Gore administration's foreign campaign contributions from China, especially to see if they resulted in favorable policy?

I mean, after all, if laws were broken -- and these are serious allegations -- they should be held accountable, correct?

It's not facetious. It's a serious question.

If you say "no," please explain why.

I firmly believe that Clinton should have been kicked out after he committed perjury. How far back to we go? I think maybe Clinton is as far back as you could take it, anything beyond that is someone who got away with it. Regardless, I think that consequence needs to be reinstalled, and that politicians need to be held accountable for their actions. If there are misdeeds, there needs to be punishments; that's it. Abuse and misuse the power and soveriegnty of the People and pay the price; that's what it needs to be. We have to start somewhere, we can't continue to allow the treason of the past to excuse the treason of the present.
 
What if a President's staff of legal advisors deem that rape is legal? Is everything they say automatically correct just because they are lawyers?

Isn't that what the US Senate did for Clinton?

Three investigations could not conclude that, so I don't understand how you can be so certain.

Easy. I'm not a politically biased government investigating panel, and connecting the dots wasn't all that difficult.

===

Waterboarding isn't torture. It's merely unpleasant.

The important fact to note is that the persons compelled to testify in that fashion are not having their testimony used against them in court.

Not to mention the fact that they're terrorists and no decent person cares about them.

So, no, I'm not all that excited over the fact that the US decided to use non-torture techniques to extract information from enemies willing to use babies to murder other babies.

I'm very concerned that the current administration has no problem with ex post facto criminalization of policy decisions from the prior administration, and even more concerned that people are so truly ignorant they can't see the dangers that presents us all.
 
Last edited:
Good someone agrees with me. :mrgreen:

Doesn't bode well for the nation when agreement with what you said is rare. I mean, petrified pansies worried more about the non-torture of terrorists than the President selling national secrets to potential enemies?
 
Last edited:
Dangit. Will a mod please add a yes/no poll? :doh

Moderator's Warning:
I'd be happy to but your poll question is too long for the system. Reduce it to 100 characters or less and it will be added.
 
Back
Top Bottom