The fire of President Clinton

[Guest]

As I recall, the deposition Clinton lied in, was in the Paula Jones case. That case might have ended with a settlement early on that would have let both sides move on with their lives, had it no been for active financing and participation by interests on the Right who had no interest in Miss Jones, but in getting a political advantage.

And remember Ken Starr's investigation. Everytime one area did not pan out, he'd move on to another. White Water, Travel Gate, Monica, etc. etc. etc. While his office leaked every unsupported item forcing the WH to respond. It was quite clear justice wasn't the motive, but rather to send the message that if you are a non-Republican President, you will be harrassed continually.

That's why I love the Right's assertion now that Clinton was too distracted by "his scandals" to properly pursue OBL. If that is true, it doesn't seem to occur to them that they are partly to blame.

 

[Joesephus]

No, it's not. If you read that into my posts, I have some serious doubts about your literacy.

So he broke the law and should recieve the punishment. Ya dig?

But, do you claim that the prosecution did an amiable thing? I claim that what they did should be an equally high crime, an act of criminal disregard against the law and against the jucidial system. Unless there was a solid rationale for bringing the subject up, (and frankly, after reading a bit about the case(s) today, I still can't find any) some crime (or what should be a crime) was committed there before Clinton's lie.

My lack of English literacy is always a problem. It is easy for me to misread in this sort of discussion. If I have please let me apologize.

If your point is that the questions shouldn't have been asked... hmmm the S Court said he could be sued. Frankly, I think the case (Jones) should have been postponed until after he was out of office, but that's just my opinion and I'm not a citizen. I also don't like the idea of making political acts a crime. I'm afraid I'm seeing that in the Libby case. Certainly some of the legal action against some of Clinton's people look like it. Was the question disrespectful? Sure, was it valid? In a sexual harrassment suit? yeah probably. Do I think Jones was harrassed? No!

I would hate to see political lies be subject to court cases, but when you take an oath you have to tell the truth. Your own Constitution says you don't have to answer a question that puts you at risk. Don't lie, don't answer.

 

[JustaJerk]

My personal opinion of Clinton is that he's a sexual predator and a bigger criminal that Richard Nixon ever was.

i love the fine smell of Republican hypocrisy in the morning.

AND

i have a question, with a couple thousand US soldiers having died in the dust of Iraq, the loss of control of S. and E Aghanistan,
the increasingly numerous killer, jihadi extremists around the world, per the last Intelligence report, what is it that draws you instead to the topic of Clinton's dick?

Because this thread is about Clinton, not Bush.

Otherwise, the only politician I've seen in a long time that made any sense was Bentson, Mondale's running mate.

 

[jeninflorida]

billie is the ultimate sales person! he is a charmer and the life of the party. however, most men would feel uncomfortable leaving him around the wife and daughter (college age). all i can say is wow, (from your post - sure your husband was a happy man last night)!

I saw the Fox News interview with President Clinton, in which he lost his temper a little bit over the suggestion that he didn't do enough to stop ObL.

The interview reminded me again why I liked the guy and why I absolutely do not blame him for the sex scandals that marred his presidency.

You see, I've met the man. It was only for a few minutes in a Rose Garden ceremony for my father and several other ranking naval officers. The president spoke individually with most of the people assembled and took an interest in my husband since, at the time, he was a teacher at an inner-city high school.

Mr. Clinton then turned to me, shook my hand and said something like "You must be proud to have a husband and a father both serving our country in such important ways".

In that instant, I felt the raw power of his presence and was glad that I wasn't alone in a room with him. If I hadn't been surrounded by a hundred other people, I would have embarrassed myself and behaved like a sex-crazed teenager.

There's something about him that makes a woman want to throw herself at him. Over the years, I'm sure any number of women have done it in subtle or not so subtle ways and I have to cut him some slack for yielding to the temptation a few times.

Anyway, when I saw the interview, the fire in his eyes and the way he articulated his views made me want to fuck him - and then vote for him.

I turned off the TV, found my husband in the other room, unbuttoned my blouse, and whispered "fuck me" in my best Marilyn Monroe voice. Bill (my husband, not the other Bill) knew better than to ask why. I didn't tell him what had turned me on until several hours later when he had finished the job.

 

[jeninflorida]

Bush has also lied under oath, but to impeach you need the House, and to convict you need the Senate. Like Colly said, he's bulletproof on that sort of issue. You may as well ask, she said, for a pony.

billie is not bulletproof, he's teflon coated

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Because this thread is about Clinton, not Bush.

Otherwise, the only politician I've seen in a long time that made any sense was Bentson, Mondale's running mate.

Bentsen? Lloyd Bentsen was Dukakis's running mate in 1988. Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale's in 1984, the first female nominee of a major party for either side of the ticket in American history.

 

[cantdog]

billie is not bulletproof, he's teflon coated

What boots it, ass? He's not running and he's history.

 

[Couture]

If anyone wants to criticise Clinton perhaps better grounds would be that he pardoned 100 unmitigated crooks(and good mates) on his last day in office.

That's nothing compared to the number of folks Nixon pardoned. The fact of the matter was that Clinton pardoned an average number of folks for a president. Now, King George I pardoned a pretty miserly number of people. However, most other Presidents pardoned quite a few more. Only difference was that Clinton had a right-wing conspiracy against him to make a big deal out of it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Clinton's problem was that he's intelligent, and American's don't understand intelligence. They understand toughness and they understand charm and folksiness but they just don't trust intelligence.

When the final histories are written, though, it'll be obvious that he was probably the smartest president since Roosevelt. If you consider presidential success to be peace, prosperity, and foresight, name anyone else who comes close.

The impeachment business was, of course, a partisan hatchet job whose only goal was to usurp his power and drive him from office. They dug and they dug and they harassed and they didn't stop digging until they uncovered an opportunity to force him to either embarrass the office or perjure himself over a personal matter of total irrelevance to his fitness to serve as President of the United States. They arranged to ask him about this matter while he was under oath even though the question had nothing to do with the issue under investigation. He played back as dirty as they played with them, and they squealed "foul" and called it perjury and pretended that this was a "high crime or misdemeanor" worthy of impeachment, which it most clearly wasn't. It was like putting him under oath and asking him if he masturbated at night, and they probably would have tried that if the Lewinsky thing hadn't fallen in their laps.

They then risked the national trauma and coinstitutioinal crisis of impeachment for purely vindictive political reasons, all these hypocritical republican fornicators and mistress-keepers and slimeballs going all holy-joe in a way that was nauseating. You could even see the shame in Kenneth Starr's face as he slunk out of there, knowing he'd forever have the smell of shit stuck in his nose for the work he'd done.

Anyone who believes the impeachment was about anything more than character assassination is simply a fool.

You put George Washington or Honest Abe Lincoln or any other president under oath and in front of the television cameras and ask them if they ever beat off or fucked their wives doggy style or dreamt about doing it in the ass and what do you think they're going to say? What would you say? And remember: "None of your fucking business" is not an acceptable answer.

And if anyone wants to look back and find the point where American politics got so virulently nasty and hopelessly partisan, so full of lies and distortion and raw hatred that it might be beyond saving, you need look no further than that exact point. That's when a group of unprincipled poiticians discovered just how much bullshit the American people would unquestionably swallow and how easy it was to use hatred and fear to achieve their own selfish ends.

 

[Joesephus]

Clinton's problem was that he's intelligent, and American's don't understand intelligence. They understand toughness and they understand charm and folksiness but they just don't trust intelligence.

When the final histories are written, though, it'll be obvious that he was probably the smartest president since Roosevelt. If you consider presidential success to be peace, prosperity, and foresight, name anyone else who comes close.

The impeachment business was, of course, a partisan hatchet job whose only goal was to usurp his power and drive him from office. They dug and they dug and they harassed and they didn't stop digging until they uncovered an opportunity to force him to either embarrass the office or perjure himself over a personal matter of total irrelevance to his fitness to serve as President of the United States. They arranged to ask him about this matter while he was under oath even though the question had nothing to do with the issue under investigation. He played back as dirty as they played with them, and they squealed "foul" and called it perjury and pretended that this was a "high crime or misdemeanor" worthy of impeachment, which it most clearly wasn't. It was like putting him under oath and asking him if he masturbated at night, and they probably would have tried that if the Lewinsky thing hadn't fallen in their laps.

They then risked the national trauma and coinstitutioinal crisis of impeachment for purely vindictive political reasons, all these hypocritical republican fornicators and mistress-keepers and slimeballs going all holy-joe in a way that was nauseating. You could even see the shame in Kenneth Starr's face as he slunk out of there, knowing he'd forever have the smell of shit stuck in his nose for the work he'd done.

Anyone who believes the impeachment was about anything more than character assassination is simply a fool.

You put George Washington or Honest Abe Lincoln or any other president under oath and in front of the television cameras and ask them if they ever beat off or fucked their wives doggy style or dreamt about doing it in the ass and what do you think they're going to say? What would you say? And remember: "None of your fucking business" is not an acceptable answer.

And if anyone wants to look back and find the point where American politics got so virulently nasty and hopelessly partisan, so full of lies and distortion and raw hatred that it might be beyond saving, you need look no further than that exact point. That's when a group of unprincipled poiticians discovered just how much bullshit the American people would unquestionably swallow and how easy it was to use hatred and fear to achieve their own selfish ends.

I don't know if you've read any of my other posts, but I think I've shown that lying under oath to a grand Jury is a "high crime." If not, I would recommend that you check google for several references.

You can certainly pick that point for the rupture, others might put it much earlier. Under Regan, the Contras, or things like 3M homeless. Or the Special P. on the first Bush admin with groundless indictments just before the election.

I don't know who started it, I just think it's sad. I also think it's sad that people still dismiss Clinton's crimes.

 

[Pure]

i think it's sad, if view of the staggering crimes whose scale is hard to imagine, of the last six years, that the 'crime' of Clinton's lie over a blowjob is still a favorite bone for Republicans to gnaw on.

whatever your thoughts, joe, the Senate did not vote to convict; they decide about 'high crimes' and impeachment. they would have voted to convict for Nixon. you just gotta live with it.

the Senate vote was not even close, it was 45 in favor, 55 against; but 66 would have had to be in favor. The following Republicans refused the charade:

Article One: Perjury before the Grand Jury
Requires 2/3rd majority or 67 votes



Republicans voting not guilty:

Chafee, John (R-RI)
Collins, Susan (R-ME)
Gorton, Slade (R-WA)
Jeffords, Jim (R-VT)
Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) [Voted "Not Proved"]
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Thompson, Fred (R-TN)
Warner, John (R-VA)
Democrats voting guilty:

none


Text of Article One:

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administra tion of justice, in that:

On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

--
--
done. over. that's it.

 

[Darkniciad]

This same sort of partisan mudslinging has been going on forever.

Look up some of the nasty political cartoons drawn up by Abraham Lincoln's opposition.

The difference? We see more of it now - quicker. 24 hour news channels, the internet, podcasts, news updates on cellphones... we're barraged with information at every corner. The politicos utilize the most effective mediums to distribute their attacks, and there are many of them nowadays.

You can easily go back beyond Clinton and find this same sort of thing. Remember the calls of "It will be another Vietnam!" and "Draft!" during Desert Storm/Shield? There are a host of other examples, but that one just jumped in my head first. Reagan was subject to it, so was Carter.

The Genesis of the current level of mass media attacks probably goes back to Nixon, actually. Watergate opened a can of worms that has never been resealed.

The whole thing culminating in Monica was a political witch hunt by Republicans. I don't like that he lied, but that was complete B.S. Waste of our time, money, and indeed distracted Clinton from doing his job - far more than getting a hummer in the oval office ever could have. Considering he's married to shrill chillary Hillary, we were probably better off that Bill was getting a little something on the side to take the edge off, IMO.

The "Plame Affair" is nothing more than an answer to that. It is a witch hunt on Bush and his people by Democrats. There is nothing relevant there, as evidenced by the fact that the only person charged with anything was brought down on a technicality having nothing to do with the original reason of the investigation... just like Clinton. In addition, I think the SP saves a lot of money on Viagra because he springs right to attention whenever he hears his name on CNN. He just gives me that impression as an attention whore. Waste of our time, money, and distracted Bush from doing his job.

In all honesty, it probably is getting worse. Each time, the opposition party gets a little nastier in their attacks on the incumbants. When the opposition party gains power, they in turn get revenge tactics that are just a little bit nastier than those they were using to get there. It isn't a sudden turn, though, it is a steady escalation that is going to require a straight-talking ( as far as politicians go, anyway ) moderate with very few skeletons in the closet to reverse. It couldn't hurt if it was someone with the ability to speak like Clinton or Reagan too.

I think Bill would have been better served to respond to the Qs in the interview the OP is about in the smooth, well-spoken, statesmanlike manner that is his calling card. Those who love him will love it, of course, but the average joe out there sees somebody getting hot under the collar, and wonders why that person is getting so sharply defensive. It wouldn't have made much news, but I think it would have better served him ( and Democrats in general ) than turning up the heat.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

I don't know if you've read any of my other posts, but I think I've shown that lying under oath to a grand Jury is a "high crime." If not, I would recommend that you check google for several references.

i don't know why you keep insisting that lying under oath is a "high crime". all you've shown is the you 'believe' it was a high crime, and that you've found certain judges removed for lying under oath.

 

[Joesephus]

i don't know why you keep insisting that lying under oath is a "high crime". all you've shown is the you 'believe' it was a high crime, and that you've found certain judges removed for lying under oath.

I'm sorry they were removed for "High Crimes" and the "High Crime" was lying under oath. Forgive me, I should have made that clear. I also want to make clear that it was the Senate that said lying was a high crime. However, the Senate is not bound by precedent and they decided that a President lying under oath isn't a high crime. I have no complaint with that decision, but to have not impeached Clinton would have been a dereliction of duty by the house.

 

[jeninflorida]

Please, most will say that Clinton is intelligent...and we do respect that. clinton is the ultimate salesperson! he is a charmer and confident....and loves the spotlight!

Clinton's skirted the law, and spent a lot of time in the gray areas of the law. the impeachment was a joke. how many 'gates' were there.....all i can say if one thinks the clintons where honest and clean.....hum so sad.

what did clinton have to do with prosperity? he was simply there! the only one prez that can take credit for that would be regan, as he started the massive defense spending....that lead to the pc (and a big debt). in the 80's we had the big pc boom, then the big push from the big iron to the server, and then the web...and the dot com bust. oh yea, with out clinton we woudn't have internet porn and hustler & penthouse would have went under back in the 90's as regan, and bush I almost put them out of bus. when clinton came into office, he took janet off of that project and had her do other things.

im sure billie was the first person to have sex in the oval office

Clinton's problem was that he's intelligent, and American's don't understand intelligence. They understand toughness and they understand charm and folksiness but they just don't trust intelligence.

When the final histories are written, though, it'll be obvious that he was probably the smartest president since Roosevelt. If you consider presidential success to be peace, prosperity, and foresight, name anyone else who comes close.

The impeachment business was, of course, a partisan hatchet job whose only goal was to usurp his power and drive him from office. They dug and they dug and they harassed and they didn't stop digging until they uncovered an opportunity to force him to either embarrass the office or perjure himself over a personal matter of total irrelevance to his fitness to serve as President of the United States. They arranged to ask him about this matter while he was under oath even though the question had nothing to do with the issue under investigation. He played back as dirty as they played with them, and they squealed "foul" and called it perjury and pretended that this was a "high crime or misdemeanor" worthy of impeachment, which it most clearly wasn't. It was like putting him under oath and asking him if he masturbated at night, and they probably would have tried that if the Lewinsky thing hadn't fallen in their laps.

They then risked the national trauma and coinstitutioinal crisis of impeachment for purely vindictive political reasons, all these hypocritical republican fornicators and mistress-keepers and slimeballs going all holy-joe in a way that was nauseating. You could even see the shame in Kenneth Starr's face as he slunk out of there, knowing he'd forever have the smell of shit stuck in his nose for the work he'd done.

Anyone who believes the impeachment was about anything more than character assassination is simply a fool.

You put George Washington or Honest Abe Lincoln or any other president under oath and in front of the television cameras and ask them if they ever beat off or fucked their wives doggy style or dreamt about doing it in the ass and what do you think they're going to say? What would you say? And remember: "None of your fucking business" is not an acceptable answer.

And if anyone wants to look back and find the point where American politics got so virulently nasty and hopelessly partisan, so full of lies and distortion and raw hatred that it might be beyond saving, you need look no further than that exact point. That's when a group of unprincipled poiticians discovered just how much bullshit the American people would unquestionably swallow and how easy it was to use hatred and fear to achieve their own selfish ends.

 

[Joesephus]

Please, most will say that Clinton is intelligent...and we do respect that. clinton is the ultimate salesperson! he is a charmer and confident....and loves the spotlight!

Clinton's skirted the law, and spent a lot of time in the gray areas of the law. the impeachment was a joke. how many 'gates' were there.....all i can say if one thinks the clintons where honest and clean.....hum so sad.


im sure billie was the first person to have sex in the oval office

A couple of your comments interested me. I've already said why I don't think impeachment was a joke, but if you don't think the Clintons were honest why was it a joke?

Second, do you actually think that Clinton was the 1st? Perhaps JFK, but who else would have? I think the location of that BJ was what bothered me the most. I don't like people who cheat on their marriage... long story tied up with my mother. I don't consider swinging cheating BTW, so that bothered me some, but while I love having sex in kinky places (I used to regularly have sex in a chapel,) the oval office just doesn't seem right. That's probably a cultural thing.

 

[Liar]

Please, most will say that Clinton is intelligent...and we do respect that. clinton is the ultimate salesperson! he is a charmer and confident....and loves the spotlight!

Clinton's skirted the law, and spent a lot of time in the gray areas of the law. the impeachment was a joke. how many 'gates' were there.....all i can say if one thinks the clintons where honest and clean.....hum so sad.

That's probably part due to the intelligence. It takes some quick thinking (and the brashness that comes with knowing just for clever you are) to surf the grey zones of law, come out on top and looking damn snappy in the process.

 

[jeninflorida]

I think the way things were handled were a joke. Star made a lot of mistakes and lost the spin control game. the clintons are not honest and power hungry. I agree about having sex in the white house...

A couple of your comments interested me. I've already said why I don't think impeachment was a joke, but if you don't think the Clintons were honest why was it a joke?

Second, do you actually think that Clinton was the 1st? Perhaps JFK, but who else would have? I think the location of that BJ was what bothered me the most. I don't like people who cheat on their marriage... long story tied up with my mother. I don't consider swinging cheating BTW, so that bothered me some, but while I love having sex in kinky places (I used to regularly have sex in a chapel,) the oval office just doesn't seem right. That's probably a cultural thing.

 

[jeninflorida]

That's probably part due to the intelligence. It takes some quick thinking (and the brashness that comes with knowing just for clever you are) to surf the grey zones of law, come out on top and looking damn snappy in the process.

I agree, the clintons are clever..and they both know how to stay inches within the law. billie looks great, and can adapt himself for any group of poeple