Which is worse: Lying under oath OR trying, but failing to kill a criminal investigation?

I thought about this while driving to work today.

Back in the 90s, the Republicans made a big deal about Clinton committing obstruction of justice and wanted him to be impeached and removed from office. The Democrats argued that Clinton broke the law, but it is rather minor and the real bad guys were Ken Starr and the GOP.

Now flash forward about 20 years later. We have a situation where the Democrats are up in arms about Trump trying, but failing, to kill the Mueller report and asking his employees to change their testimony.

Perhaps I am missing something here. Why is Clinton's obstruction of justice okay, but Trump's obstruction of justice (lets not kid ourselves it was) worthy of being impeached and removed from office?

So which is worse or are they both worthy of being removed from office?

BrotherFease said:

I thought about this while driving to work today.

Back in the 90s, the Republicans made a big deal about Clinton committing obstruction of justice and wanted him to be impeached and removed from office. The Democrats argued that Clinton broke the law, but it is rather minor and the real bad guys were Ken Starr and the GOP.

Now flash forward about 20 years later. We have a situation where the Democrats are up in arms about Trump trying, but failing, to kill the Mueller report and asking his employees to change their testimony.

Perhaps I am missing something here. Why is Clinton's obstruction of justice okay, but Trump's obstruction of justice (lets not kid ourselves it was) worthy of being impeached and removed from office?

So which is worse or are they both worthy of being removed from office?

Click to expand...

The Left is far more hypocritical than the Right... in general.

BrotherFease said:

I thought about this while driving to work today.

Back in the 90s, the Republicans made a big deal about Clinton committing obstruction of justice and wanted him to be impeached and removed from office. The Democrats argued that Clinton broke the law, but it is rather minor and the real bad guys were Ken Starr and the GOP.

Now flash forward about 20 years later. We have a situation where the Democrats are up in arms about Trump trying, but failing, to kill the Mueller report and asking his employees to change their testimony.

Perhaps I am missing something here. Why is Clinton's obstruction of justice okay, but Trump's obstruction of justice (lets not kid ourselves it was) worthy of being impeached and removed from office?

So which is worse or are they both worthy of being removed from office?

Click to expand...

Both could be quite bad or very minor, depending on the case in question.
Depends what is lied about, or what investigation is obstructed.

Say you obstructed an investigation into who punctured your neighbor's inflatable pool while they were sunning themselves in it. Minor impact.
But if you obstructed an investigation into who stabbed your neighbor while they were sunning themselves in their inflatable pool, much larger impact.

Similar in the case of lying under oath.

I don't know how much leeway the "justice system" has to fit the punishment to the case, but...

The Mark said:

Both could be quite bad or very minor, depending on the case in question.
Depends what is lied about, or what investigation is obstructed.

Say you obstructed an investigation into who punctured your neighbor's inflatable pool while they were sunning themselves in it. Minor impact.
But if you obstructed an investigation into who stabbed your neighbor while they were sunning themselves in their inflatable pool, much larger impact.

Similar in the case of lying under oath.

I don't know how much leeway the "justice system" has to fit the punishment to the case, but...

Click to expand...

In this case, which is worse to you?

Both men broke the law and essentially got away with it.

Both men were trying to project their image. Clinton as a loving family man, and Trump trying to preserve the concept that he won fair and square, and didn't get any help from outside sources.

BrotherFease said:

In this case, which is worse to you?

Both men broke the law and essentially got away with it.

Both men were trying to project their image. Clinton as a loving family man, and Trump trying to preserve the concept that he won fair and square, and didn't get any help from outside sources.

Click to expand...

trump's is far worse. It's about Russia changing who the president is; Clinton's is about having a relationship with an intern.

Craig234 said:

trump's is far worse. It's about Russia changing who the president is; Clinton's is about having a relationship with an intern.

Click to expand...

Impeachment is political so the ops question is irrelevant and useless to the discussion.

Donald is worried. His tweet storm was an epic meltdown. It's insane that our president is tweeting 30 to 40 times in 16 hours.

The man is an unfit, illegitimate president.

BrotherFease said:

In this case, which is worse to you?

Both men broke the law and essentially got away with it.

Both men were trying to project their image. Clinton as a loving family man, and Trump trying to preserve the concept that he won fair and square, and didn't get any help from outside sources.

Click to expand...

In the case of Clinton lying under oath when he says he "did not have sexual relations", vs. Trump obstructing justice, it seems currently that Trump's actions are significantly worse.

In terms of potential harm, Clinton having sex harms at most those he had sex with and/or himself, which while potentially terrible for them doesn't significantly impact larger matters.

Trump obstructing an investigation into his 2016 campaign/himself for potentially interfering in the democratic process is far more broad and dangerous.

Now, I'm currently of the opinion that we've done more harm to our own democratic process by purging registered voters, closing polling places, demanding ID and making that ID not easily available, gerrymandering, and in a few cases straight up election fraud (as opposed to the incredibly insignificant threat of voter fraud, which is used to implement some of this bull****) than Russia did, even if you count our ongoing debate over what/when/who/how/to what degree they did such as part of the harm.

Craig234 said:

trump's is far worse. It's about Russia changing who the president is; Clinton's is about having a relationship with an intern.

Click to expand...

*trump's is far worse. It's about Russia changing who the president is;*

In which Mueller found no conspiracy or coordination.

*Clinton's is about having a relationship with an intern.*

Clinton's was about covering his arse in a sexual harassment suit.

BrotherFease said:

I thought about this while driving to work today.

Back in the 90s, the Republicans made a big deal about Clinton committing obstruction of justice and wanted him to be impeached and removed from office. The Democrats argued that Clinton broke the law, but it is rather minor and the real bad guys were Ken Starr and the GOP.

Now flash forward about 20 years later. We have a situation where the Democrats are up in arms about Trump trying, but failing, to kill the Mueller report and asking his employees to change their testimony.

Perhaps I am missing something here. Why is Clinton's obstruction of justice okay, but Trump's obstruction of justice (lets not kid ourselves it was) worthy of being impeached and removed from office?

So which is worse or are they both worthy of being removed from office?

Click to expand...

You are trying to compare apples and oranges.

The apple: Clinton lied under oath while he was President. That is not "rather minor". Neither Starr nor the GOP made him do that.

The orange: Everything Trump did was within the law. He didn't obstruct anything. He didn't lie under oath. Hell, he cooperated fully with the Weissmann investigation.

Clinton's obstruction of justice was not okay. That's why impeachment proceedings were initiated against him.

Trump did not obstruct justice. That's why impeachment proceedings have not been initiated against him.

All the rest is a smoke screen intended to influence voters for 2020.

hanger4 said:

In which Mueller found no conspiracy or coordination.

Click to expand...

The topic here isn't conspiracy or coordination, it's trump lying about the Russian interference.

Clinton's was about covering his arse in a sexual harassment suit.

Click to expand...

Yes - about his relationship with an intern, testifying in a case alleging sexual harassment.

Mycroft said:

You are trying to compare apples and oranges.

The apple: Clinton lied under oath while he was President. That is not "rather minor". Neither Starr nor the GOP made him do that.

The orange: Everything Trump did was within the law. He didn't obstruct anything. He didn't lie under oath. Hell, he cooperated fully with the Weissmann investigation.

Clinton's obstruction of justice was not okay. That's why impeachment proceedings were initiated against him.

Trump did not obstruct justice. That's why impeachment proceedings have not been initiated against him.

All the rest is a smoke screen intended to influence voters for 2020.

Click to expand...

^^ thread ^^

Mycroft said:

Everything Trump did was within the law. He didn't obstruct anything. He didn't lie under oath. Hell, he cooperated fully with the Weissmann investigation.

Click to expand...

Lets review:

(1) Trump fired Comey in order to prevent a criminal investigation against himself and because Comey wanted to press charges against Flynn.

Obstruction.

(2) Ordered his staff to fire Robert Mueller.

Obstruction.

(3) Told Michael Cohen he would get a presidential pardon, if he refused to testify.

Obstruction.

(4) Told his staff to change their testimony to Mueller's team.

Obstruction.

If Trump wasn't the President, he would be in the jail right now. That's not just my opinion, but the 1000s of lawyers who signed the petition. The fact of the matter is, Trump tried everything to stop the investigation and even provided vague written answers. He was only stopped, because his staff was smart enough to know if they followed through on his orders, they would be in jail. Lets not pretend Trump is some victim. And top of all that, he was willing to receive intelligence from a foreign government about his opponent's campaign, which is also a crime. But here's the thing: Trump couldn't care less about laws, because he's above them and his lemmings will buy anything he sells.

BrotherFease said:

Lets review:

(1) Trump fired Comey in order to prevent a criminal investigation against himself and because Comey wanted to press charges against Flynn.

Obstruction.

Click to expand...

Wrong.


No obstruction.

(2) Ordered his staff to fire Robert Mueller.

Obstruction.

Click to expand...

Wrong.


No obstruction.

(3) Told Michael Cohen he would get a presidential pardon, if he refused to testify.

Obstruction.

Click to expand...

Wrong.


No obstruction.

(4) Told his staff to change their testimony to Mueller's team.

Obstruction.

Click to expand...

Wrong.


No obstruction.

If Trump wasn't the President, he would be in the jail right now. That's not just my opinion, but the 1000s of lawyers who signed the petition. The fact of the matter is, Trump tried everything to stop the investigation and even provided vague written answers. He was only stopped, because his staff was smart enough to know if they followed through on his orders, they would be in jail.

~snipped the off-topic nonsense~

Click to expand...

Wrong.


No obstruction.

But hey...if you REALLY trust that those "1000s of lawyers" are right, tell Nancy to get moving with the impeachment.

Mycroft said:

Wrong.

Full text of Trump's letter telling Comey he's fired

Of particular interest is this from that letter:



We have since found out that Comey lied to the President on each of those three separate occasions. This alone justifies firing Comey.​

No obstruction.



Wrong.

Firing Mueller (for any reason) is a legal power of the President. Ordering his staff to fire Mueller is a legal power. There is no indication or evidence that firing Mueller would end the investigation.

That means there would have been no obstruction if Mueller had been fired...which he wasn't.​

No obstruction.



Wrong.

According to Cohen. That is hearsay.​

No obstruction.



Wrong.

More hearsay.​

No obstruction.



Wrong.

Trump did nothing to stop the investigation...and he certainly COULD have stopped it if he wanted to. Hell, he could have sent Mueller a tweet and told him to take a hike. He could have told Rosenstein to send the whole lot of them packing. There was nobody...and certainly not anybody on his staff who could have stopped him. All would have been within his power to do.

But he didn't.​

No obstruction.

But hey...if you REALLY trust that those "1000s of lawyers" are right, tell Nancy to get moving with the impeachment.

Click to expand...

Might as well be talking to a potted plant.

BrotherFease said:

I thought about this while driving to work today.

Back in the 90s, the Republicans made a big deal about Clinton committing obstruction of justice and wanted him to be impeached and removed from office. The Democrats argued that Clinton broke the law, but it is rather minor and the real bad guys were Ken Starr and the GOP.

Now flash forward about 20 years later. We have a situation where the Democrats are up in arms about Trump trying, but failing, to kill the Mueller report and asking his employees to change their testimony.

Perhaps I am missing something here. Why is Clinton's obstruction of justice okay, but Trump's obstruction of justice (lets not kid ourselves it was) worthy of being impeached and removed from office?

So which is worse or are they both worthy of being removed from office?

Click to expand...

And Clintons obstruction was ambiguous,.

He stated he did not have sex with that woman, there is an argument as to whether receiving a BJ is actually having sex.

And whether it is or isn't was between him, his wife and Monica.

It was none of our ****ing business!!!

What we are looking at now is totally different, we have a president that has been proven to have coordinated with foreign nationals to fix an election and get himself president.

Which of those two situations do you think is more impeachable???

Should be a simple question....

DamnYankee said:

Might as well be talking to a potted plant.

Click to expand...

Or at least practising a whole line of bull**** trying to make it sound even somewhat credible....

Mycroft said:

Wrong.

Click to expand...

No, you're wrong. Trump changed his story, like always. It was all about Russia. Here's what Wiki said:

Dismissal of James Comey - Wikipedia

Within a few days, Trump and other White House officials directly linked the dismissal to the FBI's Russia investigation. During a May 10 meeting in the Oval Office with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Trump told the Russian officials "I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job." He added: "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off"...."When I decided [to fire Comey], I said to myself, I said, 'You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story",[13] while reiterating his belief that there was no proof Russia was behind any election interference.[65][66] White House officials also stated that firing Comey was a step in letting the probe into Russian election interference "come to its conclusion with integrity".[67][68] White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders expressed the hope that firing Comey would help bring the Russia investigation to an end.

Click to expand...

And here's the summary from the Mueller report via Wiki:

"In the week leading up to Comey's May 3, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, the President told Don McGahn that it would be the last straw if Comey did not set the record straight and publicly announce that the President was not under investigation, despite repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement,"...Trump told his aides that he was going to fire Comey on May 5, and did so on May 9...."Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President's decision to fire Comey was Comey's unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite the President's repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement", the report reads.

Click to expand...

Firing Mueller (for any reason) is a legal power of the President. Ordering his staff to fire Mueller is a legal power. There is no indication or evidence that firing Mueller would end the investigation.

Click to expand...

Presidents are not above the law. They have the power to fire or hire anybody, but they do not have the power to sabotage an investigation. If firing Mueller was perfectly legal, then why did they ALL say no? The reason is simple: That would be against the law. Trumpists act like he's some sort of king.

According to Cohen. That is hearsay.

Click to expand...

It's in the Mueller report.

More hearsay.

Click to expand...

No, it is in the Mueller report.

After the news broke out in late January 2018, that Trump ordered Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller in June 2017, Trump pressured McGahn to deny the reports. "After the story broke, the President, through his personal counsel and two aides, sought to have McGahn deny that he had been directed to remove the Special Counsel," the report reads...Trump told then-White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter to tell McGahn to create a record that makes clear Trump never directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel....the President said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file 'for our records' and wanted something beyond a press statement to demonstrate that the reporting was inaccurate. The President referred to McGahn as a 'lying bastard' ...Porter recalled Trump "saying something to the effect of 'If he doesn't write a letter, then maybe I'll have to get rid of him'".[176][151] Trump did not fire McGahn, who departed on October 17, 2018.[149]

Click to expand...

Trump did nothing to stop the investigation...and he certainly COULD have stopped it if he wanted to.

Click to expand...

Except all the tweets, all the reports showing that he tried his best to stop the investigation and can anybody who want to investigate him and his team.

But hey...if you REALLY trust that those "1000s of lawyers" are right, tell Nancy to get moving with the impeachment.

Click to expand...

I never said impeach. But it's pretty clear that Trump attempted to obstruct justice. The petition said that if Trump were not President, he would have been convicted of a crime.

DamnYankee said:

Might as well be talking to a potted plant.

Click to expand...

Everything he said is contradicted by facts and the Mueller report. The Trump Adminstration tried to kill any investigation on his staff, and went after people who tried to tell the truth. This is reality.

BrotherFease said:

Everything he said is contradicted by facts and the Mueller report. The Trump Adminstration tried to kill any investigation on his staff, and went after people who tried to tell the truth. This is reality.

Click to expand...

Then impeach. Why have leftists been waiting so long? Impeach DJT so we can get onto the next bellyaching bitch session leftists have in store for the nation.

BrotherFease said:

I thought about this while driving to work today.

Back in the 90s, the Republicans made a big deal about Clinton committing obstruction of justice and wanted him to be impeached and removed from office. The Democrats argued that Clinton broke the law, but it is rather minor and the real bad guys were Ken Starr and the GOP.

Now flash forward about 20 years later. We have a situation where the Democrats are up in arms about Trump trying, but failing, to kill the Mueller report and asking his employees to change their testimony.

Perhaps I am missing something here. Why is Clinton's obstruction of justice okay, but Trump's obstruction of justice (lets not kid ourselves it was) worthy of being impeached and removed from office?

So which is worse or are they both worthy of being removed from office?

Click to expand...

Impeachment is a political process with all its pluses and minuses. Bill Clinton's impeachment was a one party affair. Only Republicans for the most part wanted him impeached and removed from office. Most independents and Democrats didn't. Here's some polling questions from that time.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. December 19-20, 1998. N=1,285 adults nationwide.
.

"As you may know, the House of Representatives has voted to impeach Bill Clinton. Next the Senate will hold a trial to decide whether or not Clinton should be removed from office. First, do you approve or disapprove of the House vote to impeach Clinton?"
%
Approve 40
Disapprove 59
No opinion 1
.

"Clinton now will face trial by the Senate, which will decide whether or not he should be removed from office. Do you think the Senate should or should not remove Clinton from office?"
%
Should 33
Should not 66
No opinion 2
.

"Which would be your preference: for the Senate to remove Clinton from office, for the Senate to censure or officially reprimand Clinton, or for the Senate to drop the whole matter?"
%
Remove from office 29
Censure Clinton 39
Drop the matter 32
No opinion 1
.

"Do you think the House voted to impeach Clinton on the basis of the facts of the case, or on the basis of partisan politics?"
%
Facts of the case 36
Partisan politics 61
No opinion 3

Clinton: Scandals II


As for Trump, you have this:

Poll: No impeachment bump after Mueller's testimony - POLITICO

You see, the polls are very similar. 40% approved of the House beginning impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, 39% approve of it against Trump. If impeachment against Trump proceeds, it will once again be a one party affair with democrats fully behind impeachment, Republicans and independents opposed.

Which is worse? I think Bill's was totally a Republican partisan affair, if impeachment goes ahead on Trump, it will be a totally partisan Democratic affair. You're party affiliation will answer that question. So which is worse is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, Bill shouldn't have and Trump shouldn't be.

Man, I can't believe some of you are still on this "Russians elected Trump" thing. At some point you need to face reality, hard as it may be. And that is, it was just an excuse that Hillary pulled out of her arse. That's all, no more, no substance. No facts. You must realize by now.... she was a liar, right? C'mon, man up.