• 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!

How did the clinton impeachment start?

RetiredUSN said:
No.... He lied about Paula Jones and Miss Lewinsky to a grand jury. Paula Jones, her lawyers, and Linda Tripp took down Bill Clinton along with the FBI.

That is what his law license was revoked for, and also the grounds of impeachment.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Someone finally brings up Paula Jones. :2wave:
 
bongsaway said:
The whole thing started over 'whitewater' a real estate deal. They couldn't find the clintons did anything wrong so they impeached him for lying about a blow job to congress.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. That makes sense. They had to do something to discredit Clinton as they couldn't find anything in the Whitewater investigation.

Clinton should never have been asked the question about Lewinski. Since he was, he should have looked them in the eye and said, "That's none of your G D business. Next question." He'd have been fully justified in doing so
 
Can anybody here really imagine Republicans supporting the impeachment of trump if he had lied under oath about having an affair?

I can't imagine them demanding impeachment if he choked a girl scout to death with his bare hands on live television. I'm sure as hell not imagining them demanding impeachment for committing perjury to hide an affair.
 
bongsaway said:
What was the reason the republicans starting looking into bill clinton to impeach him?
Click to expand...

The catalyst for the president's impeachment was the Starr Report, a September 1998 report prepared by Independent Counsel Ken Starr for the HousInitially chosen as Independent Counsel in 1994, and charged with investigating Bill and Hillary Clinton's pre-presidency financial dealings with the Whitewater Land Company,[1] Ken Starr, with the approval of Attorney General Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct while he was a defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas state government employee, Paula Jones. In the course of the investigation, Linda Tripp provided Starr with taped phone conversations in which Monica Lewinsky, a former White House Intern, discussed having oral sex with the president. Clinton gave a sworn deposition in the Jones case on January 17, 1998, during which he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. He also denied that he was ever alone with her. Seven months later, on August 17, Clinton faced a federal grand jury, convened by Ken Starr, to consider whether the president committed perjury in his January deposition, or otherwise obstructed justice, in the Jones case.[2] A much-quoted statement from the deposition shows Clinton questioning the precise use of the word "is", saying, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement".[3] Clinton contended that his January statement that "there's nothing going on between us" had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned. He also stated that oral sex was not, in his opinion, "sexual relations" within the meaning of that term as adopted in the Jones case (ie. vaginal intercourse).[2]e Judiciary Committee.[1]


hope that answers your inquiry
 
lemmiwinx said:
In retrospect I'd have to say a censure would've sufficed for Clinton. Same goes for Trump today. I think House members with the power to impeach get full of themselves sometimes and want to show it off.
Click to expand...

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate and pretend that I agree with just censuring him.
Never mind your opinion of the House doing what the Constitution says to do...let's just go along with censure for the sake of discussion:

Do you not agree that TrumpCo (that is, Trump AND his entire administration) would (A) immediately push this as VICTORY and immediately UP the ANTE on even MORE despicable and criminal acts, out in the open, or do you honestly think that (B) he would learn from this and conduct himself in a somewhat more chastened and dignified presidential manner?

My gut says he'd immediately pivot to A on steroids, Trump Unchained, look out Democrats, it's payback time, look out liberals, you're on notice that criticizing the President will mean trouble for you, get ready Blue States, we're giving you the big hurt, look out media, we're going to shut every last one of you down, etc.

But of course, it's possible that you're okay with all that.
I don't know, I'm "asking for a friend".
 
bongsaway said:
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. It started over whitewater and ended up with perjury because he lied about having sex with monica.

So the republicans impeached him for lying about a blow job and yet see nothing wrong with trump's behavior with the russians, ukraine and china since he also asked them to investigate the bidens. A frigging blow job.
Click to expand...

Clinton should've been impeached for this...

1996 United States campaign finance controversy - Wikipedia
 
gdgyva said:
The catalyst for the president's impeachment was the Starr Report, a September 1998 report prepared by Independent Counsel Ken Starr for the HousInitially chosen as Independent Counsel in 1994, and charged with investigating Bill and Hillary Clinton's pre-presidency financial dealings with the Whitewater Land Company,[1] Ken Starr, with the approval of Attorney General Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct while he was a defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas state government employee, Paula Jones. In the course of the investigation, Linda Tripp provided Starr with taped phone conversations in which Monica Lewinsky, a former White House Intern, discussed having oral sex with the president. Clinton gave a sworn deposition in the Jones case on January 17, 1998, during which he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. He also denied that he was ever alone with her. Seven months later, on August 17, Clinton faced a federal grand jury, convened by Ken Starr, to consider whether the president committed perjury in his January deposition, or otherwise obstructed justice, in the Jones case.[2] A much-quoted statement from the deposition shows Clinton questioning the precise use of the word "is", saying, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement".[3] Clinton contended that his January statement that "there's nothing going on between us" had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned. He also stated that oral sex was not, in his opinion, "sexual relations" within the meaning of that term as adopted in the Jones case (ie. vaginal intercourse).[2]e Judiciary Committee.[1]


hope that answers your inquiry
Click to expand...

Thank you it does. My point is most people like to believe it was about lying to congress, that was just a side effect since they couldn't prove any wrongdoing in whitewater.

But the lie still persists, clinton was impeached for lying which is only half true and not the reason the investigation was started.
 
Cardinal said:
It was a simpler time. If trump lied to a grand jury republicans would laugh that out of any impeachment hearing.
Click to expand...
No, we wouldn't
Although, just to be safe, that’s pretty specifically why republicans are dead set against him testifying under oath.
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
Because he was the biggest socialist in the history of socialism. I know that to be a fact because Rush Limbaugh said it was so with time.
 
chuckiechan said:
He lied to a Grand Jury.
Click to expand...

NO, that is not it at all. Do any of the trump supporters know history. The GOP controlled congress appointed a special counsel to investigate the Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater deal. When the first investigator could not find any thing there, the GOP appointed Ken Starr who after four years could only come up with Clinton lying about sex. The GOP then impeached him in the House and he remained president by one vote in the Senate.
 
bongsaway said:
Thank you it does. My point is most people like to believe it was about lying to congress, that was just a side effect since they couldn't prove any wrongdoing in whitewater.

But the lie still persists, clinton was impeached for lying which is only half true and not the reason the investigation was started.
Click to expand...

he was impeached for perjury and other charges

the investigation started with what they thought were shady real estate dealings...
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate and pretend that I agree with just censuring him.
Never mind your opinion of the House doing what the Constitution says to do...let's just go along with censure for the sake of discussion:

Do you not agree that TrumpCo (that is, Trump AND his entire administration) would (A) immediately push this as VICTORY and immediately UP the ANTE on even MORE despicable and criminal acts, out in the open, or do you honestly think that (B) he would learn from this and conduct himself in a somewhat more chastened and dignified presidential manner?

My gut says he'd immediately pivot to A on steroids, Trump Unchained, look out Democrats, it's payback time, look out liberals, you're on notice that criticizing the President will mean trouble for you, get ready Blue States, we're giving you the big hurt, look out media, we're going to shut every last one of you down, etc.

But of course, it's possible that you're okay with all that.
I don't know, I'm "asking for a friend".
Click to expand...

Of course he would take option A. There is no doubt about that.
That said, the Democrats would have been much better off to have opted for a censure. It would have been much simpler, and still would have allowed them to bring out Trump's dirty laundry before the next election, which is their real purpose. No one expects the Republican controlled Senate to vote to remove Trump from office. That's about as likely as pigs flying, Hell freezing, and San Francisco going Republican all in the same day.
 
apdst said:
Really? :lamo
Click to expand...

Yes, really. My guess is that you posted the link but didn’t read the article contained within.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Of course he would take option A. There is no doubt about that.
That said, the Democrats would have been much better off to have opted for a censure. It would have been much simpler, and still would have allowed them to bring out Trump's dirty laundry before the next election, which is their real purpose.
Click to expand...

---How would censure enable that?

Dittohead not! said:
No one expects the Republican controlled Senate to vote to remove Trump from office. That's about as likely as pigs flying, Hell freezing, and San Francisco going Republican all in the same day.
Click to expand...

Not trying to start a flame war or anything, but remember, this was the same thing everyone was saying all the way up till late Spring, 1974.
Support for impeaching Nixon barely got more than 20 percent give or take a little, all the way up until the brink of Summer '74.
Then the tide suddenly turned.
 
Cardinal said:
It certainly shouldn’t be treated lightly. Clinton obstructed justice, and if he had been removed from office he’d have nobody but himself to blame. Ultimately, however, there were two reasons he wasn’t convicted: 1)he apologized and begged forgiveness, and 2)the underlying offense he lied about was one that the American public at large doesn’t believe is worthy of removal from office.

Those factors are significant, because trump will never apologize, and his offenses as well as underlying offenses are egregious.
Click to expand...


First, Ken Starr asked a question of Clinton that was so blatantly politically motivated that is was a disgrace. Starr had been charged with digging up something - anything - on the Clintons to tie them to the scandal known as Whitewater. He spent $50 million taxpayer dollars and came up with nothing on the Clintons. Since Clinton knew he had done nothing wrong in respect to Whitewater, he confidently agreed to testify in front of the grand jury.

Then Starr asked about the rumored affair with the WH intern. Unknown to Clinton, Starr had physical evidence that proved the affair. The question had nothing to do with Whitewater. There was no underlying crime. The whole point in asking the question was to embarrass the president, to humiliate him and the First Lady.

Clinton failed to remember a standard lawyer edict, namely "Never ask a question in open court that you don't already know the answer" and committed an unforced error when he denied the affair. That was the basis for the article of impeachment. If Clinton had just taken his medicine and fessed up to the affair, Starr would have walked out of the grand jury with nothing more than having embarrassed the president. As it was, it was the ultimate "gotcha!" moment. Not only was the president embarrassed, he had committed an impeachable offense.

Yes, the president committed perjury, but the senate decided that because there was no underlying crime, the question about the affair, far outside the bounds of the Starr investigation, should never have been asked and did not warrant removing the president from office.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
First, Ken Starr asked a question of Clinton that was so blatantly politically motivated that is was a disgrace. Starr had been charged with digging up something - anything - on the Clintons to tie them to the scandal known as Whitewater. He spent $50 million taxpayer dollars and came up with nothing on the Clintons. Since Clinton knew he had done nothing wrong in respect to Whitewater, he confidently agreed to testify in front of the grand jury.

Then Starr asked about the rumored affair with the WH intern. Unknown to Clinton, Starr had physical evidence that proved the affair. The question had nothing to do with Whitewater. There was no underlying crime. The whole point in asking the question was to embarrass the president, to humiliate him and the First Lady.

Clinton failed to remember a standard lawyer edict, namely "Never ask a question in open court that you don't already know the answer" and committed an unforced error when he denied the affair. That was the basis for the article of impeachment. If Clinton had just taken his medicine and fessed up to the affair, Starr would have walked out of the grand jury with nothing more than having embarrassed the president. As it was, it was the ultimate "gotcha!" moment. Not only was the president embarrassed, he had committed an impeachable offense.

Yes, the president committed perjury, but the senate decided that because there was no underlying crime, the question about the affair, far outside the bounds of the Starr investigation, should never have been asked and did not warrant removing the president from office.
Click to expand...

I understand that it was asked just to embarrass him. I don’t think Republicans should have used an affair by itself to humiliate him, I don’t think Clinton should have had that affair in the first place, and I don’t think he should have lied about it. In my mind, both Clinton and Republicans should have sat in a corner wearing dunce hats.

Clinton committed perjury to be sure, but I’m not able to separate that in my mind from the underlying offense, and in the end, the same was true with a majority of Americans.
 
bongsaway said:
What was the reason the republicans starting looking into bill clinton to impeach him?
Click to expand...

If I remember right, it all started with Ken Star's investigation into White Water, then Star was given more to investigate with Bill's women, then more was added. When it became clear Bill had lied to either congress or the grand jury or both, that is when impeachment started. Best to my recollection anyway.

Bill was a popular president, in fact his approval numbers climbed during impeachment and the trial. A good majority didn't want him removed. Trump is a fairly unpopular president and America is split pretty much down the middle.
 
bongsaway said:
What was the reason the republicans starting looking into bill clinton to impeach him?
Click to expand...

Monika was pissed she was removed from contact and wouldn't be able to **** Bill anymore. Got nervous and started talking about it.

It was kind of an unofficial whistle blower report. Although it didn't involve a whistle.....
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, really. My guess is that you posted the link but didn’t read the article contained within.
Click to expand...

You're ok with Clinton receiving cash donations from the Chinese government?
 
gdgyva said:
he was impeached for perjury and other charges

the investigation started with what they thought were shady real estate dealings...
Click to expand...

It is important to note those shady real estate dealing in which everybody else involved were found guilty, with the exception of Clinton.

That seemed odd to me at the time.
 
Cardinal said:
Did that happen?
Click to expand...

:lamo

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996,[1] China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC[2] in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom