The Impeachment Thread

[Ty4Vols]

With one exception. The POTUS admitting to lying under oath. You guys love to forget that. I think Trump is a scum bag. So don’t throw that at me. But he hasn’t admitted to lying about sexual harassment in a sexual harassment lawsuit. Clinton should have been dragged from office that day.

Clinton lied about a consensual affair to Congress. Not defending Bill but to be honest he was never charged or accused of sexual harassment by Lewinsky. In fact she stated their affair was consensual.

 

[RockyTop85]

Clinton lied about a consensual affair to Congress. Not defending Bill but to be honest he was never charged or accused of sexual harassment by Lewinsky. In fact she stated their affair was consensual.

It’s still harassment because he was her boss.

He lied; full stop. Impeachable.

 

[zeppelin128]

Clinton lied about a consensual affair to Congress. Not defending Bill but to be honest he was never charged or accused of sexual harassment by Lewinsky. In fact she stated their affair was consensual.

Oh you sweet summer child. You are about to get roasted by the board.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Clinton lied about a consensual affair to Congress. Not defending Bill but to be honest he was never charged or accused of sexual harassment by Lewinsky. In fact she stated their affair was consensual.

all this, should have been between him and Hillary. Isn't that the institution that was harmed.... Although i believe they have a purely power political marriage, it shouldn't have been touched politically.

 

[SamRebel35]

It’s still harassment because he was her boss.

He lied; full stop. Impeachable.

In addition, since we're all cool with hearsay these days, Christopher Hitchens (who died from cancer, not suicide by Clinton) had plenty of DC friends in high places who informed him of Clinton's witness tampering and implied threats to Lewinsky leading up to the trial. Say what you want about Hitch, but that man didn't spit bull**it.

 

[RockyTop85]

In addition, since we're all cool with hearsay these days, Christopher Hitchens (who died from cancer, not suicide by Clinton) had plenty of DC friends in high places who informed him of Clinton's witness tampering and implied threats to Lewinsky leading up to the trial. Say what you want about Hitch, but that man didn't spit bull**it.

Why didn’t he just tweet the threats at her?

 

[Ty4Vols]

It’s still harassment because he was her boss.

He lied; full stop. Impeachable.

Again not defending Bill but that isn't exactly true. Just being the boss does not mean it was sexual harassment. There are definitely situations it can be (let's be honest that we probably all believe it should always be but we must also agree that our opinions are not the law) but its not as simple as you stated. There are other factors that would need proven for this to become sexual harassment.

 

[RockyTop85]

Again not defending Bill but that isn't exactly true. Just being the boss does not mean it was sexual harassment. There are definitely situations it can be (let's be honest that we probably all believe it should always be but we must also agree that our opinions are not the law) but its not as simple as you stated. There are other factors that would need proven for this to become sexual harassment.

It’s not legally harassment but the federal government (and most corproations) has incredibly strict policies about fraternization between supervisors and subordinates.

Those rules exist because there is an inherent pressure to consent when the person is your boss. That pressure has to be remarkable when the person is POTUS.

I liked some of Clinton’s policies and I don’t care what he lied about, he should have been made an example of.

 

[Ty4Vols]

It’s not legally harassment but the federal government (and most corproations) has incredibly strict policies about fraternization between supervisors and subordinates.

Those rules exist because there is an inherent pressure to consent when the person is your boss. That pressure has to be remarkable when the person is POTUS.

I liked some of Clinton’s policies and I don’t care what he lied about, he should have been made an example of.

If you know the law so clearly then why the conversation with me instead of the guy that said Clinton was lying about sexual harassment during a sexual harassment investigation?
I assume you also know this is factually incorrect right?
Not trying to be a jerk but we all know what Clinton did so why not correct the guy who misrepresented the issue?
What compelled you to attempt to correct me only to agree I was right in your very next response?
Literally your first 4 words said what I said. I just didn't follow what I said with a "but" instead I used 8nly facts not opinions.

 

[zeppelin128]

If you know the law so clearly then why the conversation with me instead of the guy that said Clinton was lying about sexual harassment during a sexual harassment investigation?
I assume you also know this is factually incorrect right?
Not trying to be a jerk but we all know what Clinton did so why not correct the guy who misrepresented the issue?
What compelled you to attempt to correct me only to agree I was right in your very next response?
Literally your first 4 words said what I said. I just didn't follow what I said with a "but" instead I used 8nly facts not opinions.

Sorry dude. You are about to get eviscerated by dudes early AM.

 

[RockyTop85]

If you know the law so clearly then why the conversation with me instead of the guy that said Clinton was lying about sexual harassment during a sexual harassment investigation?
I assume you also know this is factually incorrect right?
Not trying to be a jerk but we all know what Clinton did so why not correct the guy who misrepresented the issue?
What compelled you to attempt to correct me only to agree I was right in your very next response?
Literally your first 4 words said what I said. I just didn't follow what I said with a "but" instead I used 8nly facts not opinions.

I’m not agreeing with you, I’m clarifying that I wasn’t saying that a supervisor/subordinate relationship always meets a legal definition of sexual harassment.

There is still an element of harassment involved in such relationships, due to the power dynamic.

 

[Ty4Vols]

Sorry dude. You are about to get eviscerated by dudes early AM.

It's ok. If someone gets there undies twisted because they get called.out for embellishing then so be it.
Clinton deserved to be impeached in my opinion but for the love of sanity when a man is guilty do you really need to embellish and make it worse?
I even agree that especially in today's world what Clinton did should be sexual misconduct but my OPINION is not a fact nor is it the law.
Fact is Clinton lied about a consensual affair and was rightfully impeached for lying and obstruction. He was.not impeached for sexual misconduct.
It's not really that difficult to just let the facts be the facts and let our opinions be our opinions.

 

[NEO]

I don’t give a flip who Clinton slept with nor care that he lied about it under oath.

What man who doesn’t want to see his entire life blown to hell is going to admit he cheated?

Dude did some stuff I totally disagreed with but that was a total waste of time when they tried him.

 

[Ty4Vols]

I’m not agreeing with you, I’m clarifying that I wasn’t saying that that supervisor/subordinate relationship always meets a legal definition of sexual harassment.

There is still always an element of harassment involved in such relationships, due to the power dynamic.

Didn't you say previously it's not legally sexual harassment?
You just want to argue for arguments sake
Good night my.guy. Sleep well.

 

[RockyTop85]

Didn't you say previously it's not legally sexual harassment?
You just want to argue for arguments sake
Good night my.guy. Sleep well.

Apparently it just takes me longer than most to realize I’m talking to a brick wall who doesn’t understand that “not legally sexual harassment” is not the same as “not sexual harassment.”

 

[Ty4Vols]

Apparently it just takes me longer than most to realize I’m talking to a brick wall who doesn’t understand that “not legally sexual harassment” is not the same as “not sexual harassment.”

Lol, now the baiting insult to pull me back in so you can argue more. Also, the classic change what the guy I'm chatting with was talking about twist.
Kudos to you for using all of the proper how to argue on a message board key points!
Unfortunately I'm all out of prizes to give you for your excellent use of these tactics.
Let's just say you win and call it a night.

 

[zeppelin128]

I'm just observing, don't mind me. Continue.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

I'm just observing, don't mind me. Continue.

 

[zeppelin128]

 

[luthervol]

With one exception. The POTUS admitting to lying under oath. You guys love to forget that. I think Trump is a scum bag. So don’t throw that at me. But he hasn’t admitted to lying about sexual harassment in a sexual harassment lawsuit. Clinton should have been dragged from office that day.

You're forgetting that was 4 and a half years into the investigation. Give this two more years (not really) and see what else comes up. Plus, not only does Trump refuse to comment under oath, he grants every person close to him executive immunity.
If Trump was under oath for 5 minutes, he would perjure himself 10 times.

 

[hUTch2002]

Well I can guarantee one thing - if any harm befalls him/her, the person(s) that did the outting will be sued. If I were on a jury, 5 second decision.

That suit would never see court considering there’s no duty owed. If there’s no duty owed then there can’t be a breach of that duty to establish negligence.

 

[Weezer]

You're forgetting that was 4 and a half years into the investigation. Give this two more years (not really) and see what else comes up. Plus, not only does Trump refuse to comment under oath, he grants every person close to him executive immunity.
If Trump was under oath for 5 minutes, he would perjure himself 10 times.

You love throwing out hypotheticals about the opposition while ignoring facts about your own side.

 

[hUTch2002]

Since this got bypassed, I'll quote from that written testimony:




So, we see that there is an agreement that corruption in the Ukraine is and was a serious foreign policy concern, and that Trump had reservations about whether the new president would actually do anything about the Ukrainian corruption. Note that he wrote that Trump's concerns/reservations were about corruption, and not specifically a Biden investigation.

So, it would appear that the context of all of this is a valid foreign policy issue.

After a paragraph detailing his disagreement per having to deal with Trump's personal lawyer about foreign policy in Ukraine, he wrote:



So, he didn't get the idea from Trump that there was a quid pro quo per Bidens. He didn't even get that idea from Giuliani. He formulated after the fact that Guiliani's motives MIGHT have INCLUDED such.

He tells us his opinion after the fact, what GUILIANI MAY have had in mind.

Then, about the call in question:



He didn't head nuttin, see nuttin, or get the impression from those affected that sump'n happened.

About Trump's foreign policy stance, he wrote due to misrepresentation from the press:



Per his dealings with Guiliani (whom he now wonders if he had ulterior motives:



Per the QPQ specifically:



@MontyPython , you want to point out where there is more than assumption and hearsay?

I'll go as far as to say that the claimed assumptions have been vastly exaggerated, and he reads as someone clearing the president.

You have to be kidding me OC. I read at least 15 DEVASTATING BOMBSHELLS in there. Impeach!

 

[Weezer]

It's ok. If someone gets there undies twisted because they get called.out for embellishing then so be it.
Clinton deserved to be impeached in my opinion but for the love of sanity when a man is guilty do you really need to embellish and make it worse?
I even agree that especially in today's world what Clinton did should be sexual misconduct but my OPINION is not a fact nor is it the law.
Fact is Clinton lied about a consensual affair and was rightfully impeached for lying and obstruction. He was.not impeached for sexual misconduct.
It's not really that difficult to just let the facts be the facts and let our opinions be our opinions.

Just to further a point, some still act as if Clinton was impeached for the affair. It's like the people who think Bruce Pearl got fired for a cookout. In Clinton's case, it wasn't the affair, it was lying about it under oath, and asking Lewinsky to lie as well. Perjury and obstruction. Bruce was fired and given a show cause for lying to the NCAA. It wasn't Clinton's marital indiscretion that got him impeached, it was the attempted cover up. And he was guilty of that, admitted his guilt, and yet still remained in office, which, IMO, made a total joke out of impeachment. IMO, it's not about whether you liked him or not. He committed a crime that routinely sends people to prison and somehow remained in office. I would say I don't understand it, but I do. It's politics, and politicians are often above the law. I don't think it's right, but we've seen it before.

 

[Weezer]

It’s not legally harassment but the federal government (and most corproations) has incredibly strict policies about fraternization between supervisors and subordinates.

Those rules exist because there is an inherent pressure to consent when the person is your boss. That pressure has to be remarkable when the person is POTUS.

I liked some of Clinton’s policies and I don’t care what he lied about, he should have been made an example of.

Again, JMO, but when a POTUS engages in adultery, it undermines his position as CIC, since in the military, adultery is a crime under the UCMJ. The supposed reasoning for it being a crime in the military is they are held to a higher ethical standard than civilians. So how is it we hold our soldiers to a higher ethical standard than our leaders(politicians)? The hypocrisy in our government never ceases to amaze me.