The impeachment was triggered by an investigation into the Paula Jones allegation of harassment/indecent exposure, but the impeachment itself pertained to lying to the American public over the affair, but I take your point. The original criminal investigation/charge was 100% valid (and it's a shame that nothing really came of it, because Jones was clearly telling the truth), however, the impeachment was BS. Yes, he did wrong in lying to the US public. Yes, he was a slimeball for cheating on his wife, and exploiting his power in a boss-employee dynamic during his affair with Lewinsky, but none of those things really merit the attempted removal from office per se (and the actual crime in the impeachment proceedings, perjury, was frankly pathetic; unless there is any suggestion the affair was non-consensual, and as morally repugnant as many employer-employee relationship dynamics can be, they're still not a crime, it was exclusively the business of him, Hillary, Monica and maybe Chelsea, and no-one else).
reply
share
Corbell (8199)
a year ago
Thanks for agreeing that the investigation was about the Paula Jones sexual harrassment accusation.
IMO, that was pretty valid. She deserved a fair hearing. Suppressing the fact that Bill Clinton was a male slut who was happy to have sex with women that worked for him, was a BIG THING, imo.
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
a year ago
Like I said, the Paula Jones accusation/investigation/charge was 100% valid, and it's a shame nothing came from it, as I believe her (just as I believe Juanita Broaddrick) but the attempt to impeach Clinton for simply misleading the public over his affair with Monica Lewinsky was GOP pettiness, pure and simple, and speaking even as a liberal but in the spirit of non-partisan fairness/objectivity, I can't help thinking that the clamour to see Trump prosecuted for paying-off a prostitute, is a display of similar pettiness from the other side.
Both men, and many of their predecessors, have committed REAL and SERIOUS crimes both within and out of office, but we're going after them for basically lying/misleading people over adulteries which are ultimate no-one's business
but their families. Really?
reply
share
Corbell (8199)
a year ago
The fact that he had a consensual affair was relevant to the sexual harrassment case. That investigation and the perjury charge was all about the harrassment case.
And speaking as a republican of the time, we had been led to believe that sexual harrassment was a big freaking deal.
It wasn't "petty" but part of something we thought was a big deal, that was SUPPOSED to be a big deal.
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
a year ago
The impeachment was about the lie that occurred in the process of Clinton's testimony during a private sexual harassment lawsuit by Paula Jones. Yes, the lawsuit *triggered* the events that led to the impeachment, but Clinton wasn't being impeached over the claim of sexual harassment (seeing as he was never convicted/*found* to have lied in the latter cae). He was being impeached over misleading the public over a *consensual* (if admittedly shady) *affair*. Once again, as with Trump, he technically committed a crime, and technically, in both cases, both men should be subject to legal ramifications, but it all seems like petty *reaching* in lieu of being able to get either man for something genuinely important (and there are so many examples of where both men have committed genuine crimes).
And I'm most certainly not playing down the significance of sexual harassment. It mattered then, and it sure matters now, but, like I say, that wasn't the basis of the impeachment, but simply the case that triggered the events that led to the lie, which *was* the basis for the impeachment.
reply
share
Corbell (8199)
a year ago
I think the intent of the republicans of the time, was they thought they had Clinton on a serious charge that would hurt him or his successor politically and set them up for some gains.
I think what is happening with Trump is far more dangerous. The whole investigation looks more like an excuse to arrest an political opponent.
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
a year ago
But if Trump has committed a crime, he should be convicted to the same standard as anyone else who might commit such an offence.
There should be no exceptions.
And I agree about the GOP's intent, and, judging by Al Gore's (very marginal) loss in 2000, it seems it succeeded, but is that remotely honourable?
reply
share
Corbell (8199)
a year ago
But, the same standard would be to NOT have a politically motivated fishing expedition on very old accusations.
As to the GOP of hte 90s, it was a lot better than what we have now, ie people willing to support imprisonment regardless of whether there is a reason or not. Teh GOP of the 90s, at least believed that Bill did something serious, and voted accordingly.
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
a year ago
I am inclined to agree about the 'fishing expedition', but the principle still applies, and irrespective of how diligently the law is upheld in one instance compared to another, no-one who has committed a genuine, indictable offence has any grounds to complain they were treated 'unfairly'.
That said, I've always argued that if you're white, rich, male *and* a liberal, you're more likely to get away with the same crime than anyone else. Trump's 'misfortune' is that he isn't the latter. Likewise, I also fall into *three out of four* of those categories (in case anyone was wondering, I'm not rich).
reply
share
Corbell (8199)
a year ago
If "fishing expedition" is NOT the normal standard for most people, than it is a violation of the equal protections clause and thus a violate of due process.
To be clear, it means that Donald Trump's human rights are being violated.
reply
share