28 thoughts on “Clinton Impeachment History”

  1. The “she’s nuts” thing worked with me right up until the dress. I remember the NBC special where they had all those White House interns saying how impossible it was to get close to and be alone with POTUS. Though I hated Clinton, I bought the BS hook, line, and sinker.

  2. Here let me fix it for you
    “Here’s the thing that few understand about the Clinton impeachment. Like Trump, he was deeply corrupt and a serial abuser of both people and power. The multiple acts of obstruction of justice for which he was impeached were in fact the least of his crimes. So why over those?
    All of his other criminal behavior was done or abetted by other, fiercely loyal people. Take Susan MacDougal[Roger Stone]; she [he] was willing to go to jail, and risk prison, to avoid testifying against the Clintons [Trump] in Whitewater.
    As with Trump, the DNC [RNC] operatives with bylines abetted the corruption by ignoring or misreporting it [Create multiple false narratives and distractions]. All of their allies knew how corrupt (and how they abused women [after all “I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, [women] let you do it. You can do anything”]), but protected them from consequences because they liked their policies. Remember Nina Burleigh, who expressed cheerful willingness to pleasure the presidential member with her own lips because he kept killing babies legal?
    Books have been, and will continue to be written, about the amount and depth of criminality of the Clinton administration that it got away with. The Lewinsky affair was weak tea in comparison to most of the rest. So why was he tripped up by it?
    Answer: As previously noted, most of the crimes were committed/covered up by underlings, like Slimy Sid Blumenthal [Mike Flynn, Roger Stone, Micheal Cohen, Rudy Guilliani].

    But in the case of Lewinsky, he couldn’t have someone else receive her lips and slip a cigar into her hoo hoo [or grab by the hoo hoo]. And he couldn’t let anyone else know about it.
    And then, having to be deposed in the Jones lawsuit, he had no choice except to either tell the truth (and provide evidence against himself), or to perjure himself and suborn perjury from others, to prevent Jones from getting a fair trial. Being Bill Clinton, he chose the latter.
    Of course, what he didn’t know was that Monica had taken Tripp’s good advice, and kept the dress. If she hadn’t, then the Clinton mob was fully prepared to destroy her as nut, slut, and stalker. The dress blew up their vile scheme, and Clinton was shown to be the corrupt scumbag.
    So that’s why, despite all his other much worse corruption and crimes, he was impeached for the least of it: Because it was the one thing that he’d done personally, and none of his hench people could protect him from the consequences of the behavior.

    The end

    1. The end

      “Let me interpret reality for you. Gravity does not cause things to fall down, it causes the universe to fall up. The end.”

        1. As Phoebe would explain. Ropes with a weight on one end are constantly being pushed downwards. It’s just that the weight is pushing harder. That’s why they are straight in a gravitational field. Obviously.

    2. You do realize there is no there there? What was Stone supposed to testify about? Mueller showed there was no relationship with Wikileaks or Russian hackers. I can hear you now, “But but they expressed an interest in Hillary’s emails!”

      Yes, everyone had an interest in her emails and not just the ones from Wikileaks. What this shows is that the Trump campaign played no role in wikileaks gaining or distributing the emails and had no role in Russia, or whoever else, obtaining them.

    3. This is stupider than your usual comments. It clearly lies in no degree of logic that anyone else would want to read so, clearly you simply have too much time on yours hands to mindlessly pound on a keyboard.

      1. “Take Susan MacDougal[Roger Stone]; she [he] was willing to go to jail, and risk prison, to avoid testifying against the Clintons”

        Rand my understanding of Susan MacDougal in her own words as to why she refused to testify to Ken Starr was as follows. She believed if she told the truth as she understood it about Whitewater that her testimony would contradict what other’s testimony was. He (Starr) would then decide to believe the other witness’ over MacDougal, decide that she was lying and convict her of perjury. If on the other hand MacDougal said what Starr wanted to hear about Whitewater (lied) against Clinton she would be committing actual perjury. In other words you either say what I want or I will convict you of perjury. So caught between a rock and a hard place (in her judgement) she elected to simply refuse to testify and accept the less arduous conviction of contempt of court. Sort of like holding Paul Manafort in 23 hour a day solitary confinement in jail to induce him to “come clean” and tell the “truth” against Trump in the “Russian collusion” delusion/investigation.

        1. “…He (Starr) would then decide to believe the other witness’ over MacDougal, decide that she was lying and convict her of perjury.”

          Well, it is an excuse. Not a very convincing one unless you assume the Kenneth Star has demonic powers and can indict, convict and sentence with one stamp of his cloven hooves. The act of contempt was an automatic sentence, on the other hand.

          I would favor Occam’s Razor: that she was shielding the Clintons and assumed that she could hide behind her being an “old, gray haired woman” and walk away with a token rebuke.

          1. “..you assume the Kenneth Star has demonic powers and can indict, convict and sentence with one stamp of his cloven hooves.”

            Don’t know…how much power did a special counsel have under the now defunct special counsel law? Ever heard of a perjury trap?

            “A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath).[1]

            As an example, suppose that a person committed a crime for which they were never prosecuted, but the statute of limitations on that crime has expired. A prosecutor could set a perjury trap for them by calling them as a witness before a grand jury in a case about a different crime, and ask them about the expired crime. If the witness lies about the expired crime, that would be perjury—a new crime, which could then be prosecuted.[2] Prosecution for perjury elicited in this manner violates due process of law, since the investigatory powers of the grand jury are exploited to reach beyond their legal limits.[1] It has been argued by legal scholars whether it constitutes a form of entrapment.[2]
            Claims of a perjury trap are common when perjury charges result from testimony before a grand jury, but are rarely proven.[3] No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap.[2] The defense is extremely difficult, because the question that elicited the perjured testimony must be immaterial to the case in which it was asked, and courts construe very broadly what questions count as material to a case.”


            Kind of like the Mueller investigators (Wiseman) trying to get Trump to testify under oath about his recollections of when he was informed about the infamous Trump tower’s meeting (or Stormy Daniels payments). Getting Trump’s answer, deciding that his recollections off when he was told doesn’t exactly jib with someone else, deciding that the others recall is the “truth” and Trump is lying. Guilty of false statements to investigators under oath, that is perjury. That what you allegedly “lied” about the recollection of a lawful meeting you didn’t attend is irrelevant to the “perjury”.

  3. And then there’s the problem that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing what Trump was accused of doing. If there is glaring evidence of illegal activities, such as Biden’s infamous tape where he brags about using $1 billion dollars to extort a foreign leader into stopping an investigation into his son’s company, then it’s perfectly fine for an executive to encourage law enforcement to investigate that crime.

    Democrats are pretending that urging cops to enforce the law is a criminal act, and they’re seeing how many idiots will play along. It’s not illegal to conduct an investigation of a political opponent when there’s evidence of criminal activity, such as when anyone runs against a mafia figure. What is illegal is manufacturing evidence, lying to judges, and conducting illegal wiretaps to frame a person. Obama did that.

    1. Good points.

      I’ve been saying for a while that, even if there was a quid pro quo, it was to get an investigation started, and there’s nothing wrong with that – at least, so they told me when the Obama admin used dodgy, misrepresented evidence to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.

      Basically, what Trump is accused of doing is what Biden did and bragged about – only Biden did to to get rid of a prosecutor looking into his son’s employer.

      I also wish someone would as the Democrats that, if as they say investigating a political opponent is grounds for removal from office, when can we expect all their resignations?

    2. Here, let me fix that for you…

      Democrats are pretending that the Chief Executive charged with enforcement of our laws urging cops to enforce the law is a criminal act, and they’re seeing how many idiots will play along.

      And besides Biden’s full throated confession, 0bama spent several months investigating Trump based on made up evidence.

      1. Seriously, folks, Mr. Biden’s explanation is that the Ukrainian prosecutor who got fired “needed firin'” and this had nothing to do with son Hunter and his service to Burisma.

        Of course we don’t really know that, but it would be interesting for the impeachment trial in the United State Senate to explore whether Mr. Trump’s interest in having the current Ukrainian officials “look into” the possibility of official corruption by the prior U.S. Administration reflects a legitimate or not-legitimate public interest of the current Administration, and were there any substance to the accusations against Messrs. Biden, that may color whether Mr. Trump engaged in any wrongdoing.

        That said, if there were a solid defense of the Bidens, I believe that our Usual Suspects would be weighing in on this with every opportunity, but I don’t see them doing this yet. On another Web site, one of their Usual Suspects weighed in with “that the Bidens are innocent is not ‘Narrative’, it is the truth — we have the word of a Ukrainian official on this!” (Cue Mike Meyers portraying Dr. Evil saying “right” https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dr+evil+saying+%22right%22&view=detail&mid=0E971738D9FA8C4B28020E971738D9FA8C4B2802&FORM=VIRE“)

        I have observed that Usual Suspects tend to follow Mao’s advice, “When the enemy advances, withdraw; when he stops, harass; when he tires, strike; when he retreats, pursue.” Specifically, if a weak argument is advanced, the Suspects are in full force countering it, but if their argument is weak, they are nowhere to be seen. When the Suspects are not seen, I am thinking this tells you that they don’t even have a plausible talking point to offer?

    3. They have also criminalized the President controling foreign policy and making personnel decisions in the executive branch. They even said that using the legal system to challenge their demands was obstruction and impeachable. Instead of high crimes and misdemeanors, they want to impeach for acting lawfully in carrying out his constitutionally mandated duties.

    4. “It’s not illegal to conduct an investigation of a political opponent when there’s evidence of criminal activity, such as when anyone runs against a mafia figure.”

      Not sure that the Dems’ argument is that it is illegal per see; think they are trying to say that getting a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent is an “abuse of power”; especially with the maybe implied threat of holding up aid. They seem to feel that this is largely irrelevant to whether Biden acted inappropriately (or even illegally). The fact that such aid wasn’t actually held up for long under valid reasons and subsequently released without the requested investigation being done is also irrelevant Of course Schiff is preparing I believe four articles of impeachment. It appears to me that the Dems don’t feel obliged to follow a strict interpretation of the federal statutory definitions of the legal terms they are using in their articles of impeachment. They seem to feel that it is up to Congress to decide what in its’ judgment not necessarily the statutory judgment constitutes “bribery”, obstruction of justice”, “witness intimidation”, etc. that prez Trump has allegedly done. If among other things “tweets” from the Trump while a witness is testifying criticizing her constitutes a crime (not an overt threat, etc.); is up to Congress (Dems) to decide; statutory definition of such be dammed.

  4. In other news,

    “The motions of Southeastern Legal Foundation for leaveto file briefs as amicus curiae are granted. The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.”

    So the ordeal continues, but with more friends to help, sorry that’s how it turned out, Rand.

Comments are closed.