America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by victor809. 479 replies replies.
10 Pages«<2345678910>
Trump Lawyer Arranged $130,000 Payment for Adult-Film Star’s Silence
delta1 Offline
#251 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
tail is a better man than me, if he defended Obama while in a foreign country...

if I was abroad and a local says that Trump, the sitting American president, is an idiot, I would agree. But if he said all American presidents are idiots, I would disagree, and explain there is a difference between the office and the occupant...and if I knew what America has done for that particular country, I would point that out...my advantage over tail is that my outward appearance doesn't fit the "American" image, so I am usually not bothered...

but really...who cares...most of the rest of the world believes the perception of "ugly Americans" ...loud, rude, disrespectful, thoughtless, arrogant and ignorant...I'm sure tail made us proud...
Speyside Offline
#252 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
But that really wasn't an answer to my question. Tail said he defended Obama, not that he supported Obama.
delta1 Offline
#253 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
yea...can't find where "defend" is synonymous with "support"...

It seems that a man is only obligated to support his wife and children...can't find any other sources where a man has obligations to provide support...

Trump does have a legal obligation to defend America, when he took the oath of office.
RMAN4443 Offline
#254 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
Speyside wrote:
But that really wasn't an answer to my question. Tail said he defended Obama, not that he supported Obama.


tailgater wrote:

I have supported every President during my lifetime. Even when I vehemently opposed their actions.
HuckFinn Offline
#255 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
RMAN4443 wrote:
tailgater wrote:

I have supported every President during my lifetime. Especially when I vehemently opposed their actions.

FIFY
Speyside Offline
#256 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Missed that, again thank you.
Speyside Offline
#257 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
So TG, you are different than I am. I can't support Trump, you were able to support Obama. Which is the better way to be? I don't know. Perhaps it is only a different way to be.
HuckFinn Offline
#258 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
Speyside wrote:
So TG, you are different than I am. I can't support Trump, you were able to support Obama. Which is the better way to be? I don't know. Perhaps it is only a different way to be.

I know in football it's better to be a defender than an athletic supporter. If that helps.
RMAN4443 Offline
#259 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
HuckFinn wrote:
I know in football it's better to be a defender than an athletic supporter. If that helps.

yeah, but a solid 1/3 of the team is offensive, and they all need supportersAnxious
HuckFinn Offline
#260 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
RMAN4443 wrote:
yeah, but a solid 1/3 of the team is offensive, and they all need supportersAnxious

Sorta like the remaining offensive Trump supporters....about 1/3 of the country...Sarcasm
RMAN4443 Offline
#261 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
HuckFinn wrote:
Sorta like the remaining offensive Trump supporters....about 1/3 of the country...Sarcasm

ahhhhhhhh, so you saw what I did there........then twisted it to your way of thinking

sorta:
Sarcasm
Abrignac Offline
#262 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,216
Why is this an issue since it wasn't an issue for Bill to get his tallywacker spit shined in the oval office by a 20 something year old intern?
Speyside Offline
#263 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
It isn't an issue to most.
HuckFinn Offline
#264 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
Abrignac wrote:
Why is this an issue since it wasn't an issue for Bill to get his tallywacker spit shined in the oval office by a 20 something year old intern?

Many potus have had affairs: Jefferson, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ. And that's just the horn dogs we know about.
I agree. Who GAF.

But Threatening and bribing the ex-mistress after the affair is messed up.

I know, JFK probably had Marilyn murdered.
So, hmm, maybe Trump is taking the high road?
RMAN4443 Offline
#265 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
HuckFinn wrote:
Many potus have had affairs: Jefferson, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ. And that's just the horn dogs we know about.
I agree. Who GAF.

But Threatening and bribing the ex-mistress after the affair is messed up.

I know, JFK probably had Marilyn murdered.
So, hmm, maybe Trump is taking the high road?

Trump was NOT President when this Supposed Affair took place
delta1 Offline
#266 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
Abrignac wrote:
Why is this an issue since it wasn't an issue for Bill to get his tallywacker spit shined in the oval office by a 20 something year old intern?



it WAS an issue...he got impeached because of it...
tailgater Offline
#267 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
HuckFinn wrote:
You're just stating the obvious Spey.
TG is a regular pot stirring Wolfgang Puck political debater.

Question answering is for whiners.


Once again you've backed the wrong horse.
I did answer the question.
The incessant whining is coming from the left on this one. As always.
tailgater Offline
#268 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:
tail is a better man than me, if he defended Obama while in a foreign country...

if I was abroad and a local says that Trump, the sitting American president, is an idiot, I would agree. But if he said all American presidents are idiots, I would disagree, and explain there is a difference between the office and the occupant...and if I knew what America has done for that particular country, I would point that out...my advantage over tail is that my outward appearance doesn't fit the "American" image, so I am usually not bothered...

but really...who cares...most of the rest of the world believes the perception of "ugly Americans" ...loud, rude, disrespectful, thoughtless, arrogant and ignorant...I'm sure tail made us proud...


I'm not a globetrotter, but I know how to navigate.

As for defending Obama, it wasn't a heated debate, just some comments that I didn't let slip.

I'll tell you about it over a beer sometime.

Speyside is welcomed, but tell him I refuse to answer his questions.
Twice, anyhow.


RMAN4443 Offline
#269 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
delta1 wrote:
it WAS an issue...he got impeached because of it...

The impeachment process of Bill Clinton was initiated by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, against Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.[1] These charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones and he was acquitted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

The "impeachment" process takes place in two steps.
First, a President has to be impeached in the House of Representatives. that is the equivalent of an "indictment."
Then, the President is tried in the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the United States presiding. It requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to remove an impeached president.
President Clinton was impeached in the House (on two counts) but not removed by the Senate. Ditto for President Andrew Johnson (who survived by one vote). President Nixon resigned before the impeachment was completed in the House because it was clear that the Senate would have voted to remove him had the proceedings gone that far.
Put another way, President Clinton was "indicted" (impeached), tried, and acquitted. The "acquitted" part meant that he did not have to leave office.


Clinton was impeached because he lied and obstructed justice in the Paula Jones case, not the Lewinsky case. Lewinsky was a witness in the process.
teedubbya Offline
#270 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Yea that helps trump. Lying or obstructing something that wasn’t a crime or related to the origin of the investigation.
RMAN4443 Offline
#271 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
teedubbya wrote:
Yea that helps trump. Lying or obstructing something that wasn’t a crime or related to the origin of the investigation.

??? the origin of the Investigation was Paula Jones sexual harassment allegations and Slick Willy lied under oath(perjury)

I wasn't trying to help Trump, I don't think he needs my help........I was pointing out that Clinton was not impeached for his "cigar games", but for lying and covering up in a completely different sex case

Abrignac wrote:
Why is this an issue since it wasn't an issue for Bill to get his tallywacker spit shined in the oval office by a 20 something year old intern?




delta1 wrote:
it WAS an issue...he got impeached because of it...
teedubbya Offline
#272 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Me thinks you have too look closer at Ken stars original charge.
teedubbya Offline
#273 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Trumps issue might be lying and obstructing rather than collusion.

Or money laundering. Or treason.

Or nothing.

Who knows. But the special prosecutor was not called in to look at Paula jones.
teedubbya Offline
#274 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
That would be like mueller hanging trump on something to do with stormy Daniels and claiming the original investigation was stormy danials.

Nope.

The original Clinton investigation had nothing to do with sex.
RMAN4443 Offline
#275 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
teedubbya wrote:
Trumps issue might be lying and obstructing rather than collusion.

Or money laundering. Or treason.

Or nothing.

Who knows. But the special prosecutor was not called in to look at Paula jones.


https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/presidents-constitution/clinton-impeachment/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm


The next morning, Saturday, January 17, President Clinton, in compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, arrived at his lawyer's office two blocks from the White House to give a pretrial deposition in the Jones case, with the procedure also videotaped. Sitting across the table from Paula Jones, the President was questioned for six hours by her lawyers and was quite surprised when they asked whether he ever had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky along with other detailed questions. Clinton, somber and hesitant, denied under oath having sexual relations with Lewinsky, according to the definition provided by Jones's lawyers. Clinton also said he could not recall ever being alone with her in the White House. The President's denials would later be used as the basis of an article of impeachment.

Take your pick.......
RMAN4443 Offline
#276 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
teedubbya wrote:
That would be like mueller hanging trump on something to do with stormy Daniels and claiming the original investigation was stormy danials.

Nope.

The original Clinton investigation had nothing to do with sex.





What was the reason for the original investigation?
frankj1 Offline
#277 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
RMAN4443 wrote:
What was the reason for the original investigation?

Whitewater

after a couple years maybe it morphed into sex stuff, but started as a look into wrong doing in a 6 figure loss real estate development.

Starr, like Mueller, was able to go anywhere anything led.
RMAN4443 Offline
#278 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
frankj1 wrote:
Whitewater

after a couple years maybe it morphed into sex stuff, but started as a look into wrong doing in a 6 figure loss real estate development.

Starr, like Mueller, was able to go anywhere anything led.


I understand it was Whitewater that started the investigation, but that was not what caused the impeachment....

"The reason President Clinton was impeached is that he tried to deny Paula Jones her fair day in court, in a nation where the principle of “Equality before the Law” is supposed to be sacred. But don’t expect to hear that in a college history class."
When the President was impeached before the US Senate, he was acquitted on a party line vote. On both the perjury charge and the obstruction of justice charge, every Democrat in the Senate voted “not guilty.” It is to be hoped that at least a few of those Senate Democrats felt some embarrassment two years later when President Clinton admitted that he had lied under oath (committed perjury) while giving his deposition in the Paula Jones case.

http://historyhalf.com/the-clinton-impeachment-2/


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/09/11/starr.report/

The report cites testimony about the president's conversations with a number of witnesses in the Starr investigation, including Lewinsky and White House secretary Betty Currie. Starr alleges these conversations amount to witness-tampering and obstruction of justice by hiding evidence and giving misleading accounts to lawyers for Paula Jones, who sued Clinton for sexual harassment and employment discrimination.

HuckFinn Offline
#279 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
RMAN4443 wrote:
Trump was NOT President when this Supposed Affair took place

The 130grand was given to her during the Trump presidential campaign to shut her up!
Dude, she was subsequently Threatened!

That bothers Me! Not you?
teedubbya Offline
#280 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
It was whitewater now go reread my original comment and your response.
tailgater Offline
#281 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
HuckFinn wrote:
The 130grand was given to her during the Trump presidential campaign to shut her up!
Dude, she was subsequently Threatened!

That bothers Me! Not you?


I know who it doesn't bother.
Vince Foster.


frankj1 Offline
#282 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
RMAN4443 wrote:
I understand it was Whitewater that started the investigation, but that was not what caused the impeachment....

"The reason President Clinton was impeached is that he tried to deny Paula Jones her fair day in court, in a nation where the principle of “Equality before the Law” is supposed to be sacred. But don’t expect to hear that in a college history class."
When the President was impeached before the US Senate, he was acquitted on a party line vote. On both the perjury charge and the obstruction of justice charge, every Democrat in the Senate voted “not guilty.” It is to be hoped that at least a few of those Senate Democrats felt some embarrassment two years later when President Clinton admitted that he had lied under oath (committed perjury) while giving his deposition in the Paula Jones case.

http://historyhalf.com/the-clinton-impeachment-2/


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/09/11/starr.report/

The report cites testimony about the president's conversations with a number of witnesses in the Starr investigation, including Lewinsky and White House secretary Betty Currie. Starr alleges these conversations amount to witness-tampering and obstruction of justice by hiding evidence and giving misleading accounts to lawyers for Paula Jones, who sued Clinton for sexual harassment and employment discrimination.


yeah, without reading them it all sounds familiar enough.

was Clinton President when the Jones stuff happened? Or just when the lying happened?...cuz y'know...

may be splitting Hank hairs. Rick, but the investigation began from one thing in hopes it would lead to impeachment and they kept it alive until they got what they thought would be charges that would work, but without Whitewater, never would have been an investigation leading to impeachment proceedings at all...
tailgater Offline
#283 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
teedubbya wrote:
Trumps issue might be lying and obstructing rather than collusion.

Or money laundering. Or treason.

Or nothing.


But..RUSSIA!

You're statement is true, and it's funny and pathetic all at once how the liberals cling to every new twist, even when that twist essentially eliminates the previous claims.
And then they lie about ever worrying about the original stuff they cried about.

It's convoluted, and you'd need a notebook to keep up.


I agree with you.
Special investigators can "go anywhere".

I was against the witch hunt against Bill Clinton.
Until he lied to me.
And I don't mean a political lie. Or a campaign promise broken.
I mean when he looked at me through my television. Pointed to me. And told me he didn't have sex with the plumpy intern.
I believed him until it was proven he lied.
Of course, even then we heard the brain dead stupid liberals say "by the definition provided blah blah blah I wish it were me instead of Monica he's so dreamy"
And stuff like that.
But I digress again.

RMAN4443 Offline
#284 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
HuckFinn wrote:
The 130grand was given to her during the Trump presidential campaign to shut her up!
Dude, she was subsequently Threatened!

That bothers Me! Not you?

If true yes.......but her story keeps changing, she denied it, she says it happened, Trump denies it,Cohen denies Trump knew about it......it is an allegation, give me proof........and who made the threats?......a bunch of internet trolls from what I've read.....I haven't seen any "allegations" that Trump or anyone close to him threatened her

I thought American rule of Law was "innocent until proven guilty"......well, I'm gonna hold off for some of that
"until proven guilty" part......... I mean in the past I've been told "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." or that "Behghazi was a result of an anti-Muslim video"
not everything the media or the internet tells us is true.....Not talking
teedubbya Offline
#285 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
My comment isn’t hard to keep up with.

In the end calling an investigator off a crime they see would be wrong regardless how it came to their attention.

Even in slick wliiies case. Even in hill dogs case where when one end emptied another investigation followed.

The gyrations by trump supporters, not republicans or conservatives which many do not support dolt 45, to discredit or disparage an investigation they rightly know little about is mind numbing.
delta1 Offline
#286 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
The right now insists that the President's past sexual misconduct should not have any relation to how he is judged in office, and that the Stormy Daniels affair should not be relevant to Trump's Presidency because Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct was not an issue.

When the special prosecutor appointed to investigate Clinton's Whitewater deal and found it was a dead end, then the sex stuff surrounding Clinton (that happened in the past, before he came in office) became the issue, and then that led to the Lewinsky discovery, and ultimately resulted in his impeachment. Although he was acquitted on a party line vote, an impeachment of the President is a big deal. The right felt justified to bring impeachment charges then. Clinton did not get a pass.

...and yet the cons believe Trump should get a pass...

The cons believed Paula Jones deserved her day in court...doesn't Stormy Daniels?
RMAN4443 Offline
#287 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
frankj1 wrote:
yeah, without reading them it all sounds familiar enough.

was Clinton President when the Jones stuff happened? Or just when the lying happened?...cuz y'know...

may be splitting Hank hairs. Rick, but the investigation began from one thing in hopes it would lead to impeachment and they kept it alive until they got what they thought would be charges that would work, but without Whitewater, never would have been an investigation leading to impeachment proceedings at all...

I agree on the Whitewater investigation, but the OP by Delta stated Clinton was impeached because of the Lewinsky affair and he wasn't.......he was impeached for "perjury and obstruction of justice" due to his testimony under oath in the Paula Jones case........I was trying to clear up the misconception of the legal reason for Clinton's impeachment....


Abrignac wrote:
Why is this an issue since it wasn't an issue for Bill to get his tallywacker spit shined in the oval office by a 20 something year old intern?



delta1 wrote:
it WAS an issue...he got impeached because of it...




http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/13/us/clinton-settles-jones-lawsuit-with-a-check-for-850000.html

Just as the Senate is about to begin President Clinton's impeachment trial in earnest, Mr. Clinton sent $850,000 to Paula Corbin Jones today to settle the sexual misconduct lawsuit that started it all.

RMAN4443 Offline
#288 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
RMAN4443 wrote:
Trump was NOT President when this Supposed Affair took place



Clinton was and he was using the White House to carry on the affair, and he was lying under oath about it.....and he was disbarred from the Supreme Court in the aftermath
frankj1 Offline
#289 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
RMAN4443 wrote:
I agree on the Whitewater investigation, but the OP by Delta stated Clinton was impeached because of the Lewinsky affair and he wasn't.......he was impeached for "perjury and obstruction of justice" due to his testimony under oath in the Paula Jones case........I was trying to clear up the misconception of the legal reason for Clinton's impeachment....





gotcha ^^^



http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/13/us/clinton-settles-jones-lawsuit-with-a-check-for-850000.html

Just as the Senate is about to begin President Clinton's impeachment trial in earnest, Mr. Clinton sent $850,000 to Paula Corbin Jones today to settle the sexual misconduct lawsuit that started it all.


settled a law suit, an every day legal ocurence that generally comes without a guilty verdict.
not paid off with hush money, which may not be illegal depending on the circumstances, but is scummy.

neither President showed the character that most here display every day in their lives.

and I still don't want the hush money to be the reason for tearing America apart.
Speyside Offline
#290 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
In this country the standard is innocent untill proven guilty. President Trump deserves that standard. So does Hillary Clinton. Your position is weakened every time you bring up Benghazi. Hopefully president Trump will come out of all of this without incident because he did nothing wrong. But make no mistake. The Clintons are irrelevant in context to president Trump. Also slick Willy should have been impeached IMHO.
tailgater Offline
#291 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
teedubbya wrote:


The gyrations by trump supporters, not republicans or conservatives which many do not support dolt 45, to discredit or disparage an investigation they rightly know little about is mind numbing.


It's funny how anyone who questions the investigation (that they rightly know little about) is labeled a trump supporter and is criticized.
But anyone who agrees with the investigation (that they rightly know little about) or uses the investigation (that they rightly know little about) as proof trump is unfit or should be impeached or worse, is embraced by the media and by too many on these boards.

OK.
Not "funny".
Pretty sad, actually.



tailgater Offline
#292 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
In this country the standard is innocent untill proven guilty. President Trump deserves that standard. So does Hillary Clinton. Your position is weakened every time you bring up Benghazi. Hopefully president Trump will come out of all of this without incident because he did nothing wrong. But make no mistake. The Clintons are irrelevant in context to president Trump. Also slick Willy should have been impeached IMHO.


He was impeached.

RMAN4443 Offline
#293 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
frankj1 wrote:
settled a law suit, an every day legal ocurence that generally comes without a guilty verdict.
not paid off with hush money, which may not be illegal depending on the circumstances, but is scummy.

neither President showed the character that most here display every day in their lives.

and I still don't want the hush money to be the reason for tearing America apart.

I'm not arguing about the hush money or the scumminess? of it.....I agree with you that neither President has displayed much, if any, character.........not many politicians do......Like the old joke says, How do you tell when a politician is lying?.........Their lips are moving


that last statement wasn't about the lawsuit, but the last sentence......Mr. Clinton sent $850,000 to Paula Corbin Jones today to settle the sexual misconduct lawsuit that started it all.


tailgater Offline
#294 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Clinton was a rapist.

frankj1 Offline
#295 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
RMAN4443 wrote:
I'm not arguing about the hush money or the scumminess? of it.....I agree with you that neither President has displayed much, if any, character.........not many politicians do......Like the old joke says, How do you tell when a politician is lying?.........Their lips are moving


that last statement wasn't about the lawsuit, but the last sentence......Mr. Clinton sent $850,000 to Paula Corbin Jones today to settle the sexual misconduct lawsuit that started it all.



I don't think we're even debating! Our difference may come down to if the Jones stuff started the impeachment or if the Jones stuff was just another chapter in a couple of years long drama. fuggit.

I'm much clearer on your point now. On to dreaming of beers and cigars and stuff in May?
delta1 Offline
#296 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
RMAN4443 wrote:
I agree on the Whitewater investigation, but the OP by Delta stated Clinton was impeached because of the Lewinsky affair and he wasn't.......he was impeached for "perjury and obstruction of justice" due to his testimony under oath in the Paula Jones case........I was trying to clear up the misconception of the legal reason for Clinton's impeachment...



Clinton was lying and obstructing about having an affair with.....................................................Lewinsky.

Here are the articles of impeachment filed by the House:

Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:[20]

1. the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
2. prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
3. prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
4. his attempts to tamper with witnesses


Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[21]

1. encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
2. encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
3. concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
4. attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
5. permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
6. attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
7. making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses


Not that it really matters anymore...cons have already shown that they have relinquished their standards and values when it comes to Trump...he will likely never be held accountable for his relationship with, and actions concerning, Stormy Daniels...
tailgater Offline
#297 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Perhaps we've become immune.
Whilst you have become hypersensitive.

But it is very telling when the left even mention this type of thing. It shows their white hot hatred and myopic outrage.
Stick to the Russia thingy. It might morph into something you can hang your hat on. Even though you all have moved those goalposts out of the damned stadium already.

delta1 Offline
#298 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
I think Trump enjoys all this drama...it is all about him...he's still trying to get stuff done while we are distracted and outraged...

he'd prolly chuckle at RMAN and me jousting over Clinton's impeachment...
teedubbya Offline
#299 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
tailgater wrote:
It's funny how anyone who questions the investigation (that they rightly know little about) is labeled a trump supporter and is criticized.
But anyone who agrees with the investigation (that they rightly know little about) or uses the investigation (that they rightly know little about) as proof trump is unfit or should be impeached or worse, is embraced by the media and by too many on these boards.

OK.
Not "funny".
Pretty sad, actually.






Your mutually exclusive way of thinking and either or mentality betrays you. It’s partisan. Montee Hall has another curtain.

Anyone trying to sabotage, denigrate or bitching about the investigation is labeled a trump suporter and criticized and rightfully so. We don’t know what the investigation has or will find and all the attempts to smear it are politically driven attempts with little to no logic or sense of law and order behind them.

Anyone proclaiming Trumps guilt is in the same bucket. We don’t have any information. We do have some preliminary guilty pleadings and indightments.

Supporting the investigation need not be pro or anti Trump. It could be pro truth and pro law and order. And if you discover a severed head having nothing to do with the original investigation go ahead and investigate that too.

I’ll take door number 3.




Marsha Marsha Marsha media media media
RMAN4443 Offline
#300 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
delta1 wrote:
Clinton was lying and obstructing about having an affair with.....................................................Lewinsky.

Here are the articles of impeachment filed by the House:

Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:[20]

1. the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
2. prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
3. prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
4. his attempts to tamper with witnesses


Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[21]

1. encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
2. encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
3. concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
4. attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
5. permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
6. attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
7. making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses


Not that it really matters anymore...cons have already shown that they have relinquished their standards and values when it comes to Trump...he will likely never be held accountable for his relationship with, and actions concerning, Stormy Daniels...


Grounds for Impeachment, No. I
From independent counsel Kenneth Starr's report to the House on President Clinton. Some of the language in these documents is sexually explicit.

Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page

I. There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton lied under oath as a defendant in Jones v. Clinton regarding his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
(1) He denied that he had a "sexual relationship" with Monica Lewinsky.

(2) He denied that he had a "sexual affair" with Monica Lewinsky.

(3) He denied that he had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky.

(4) He denied that he engaged in or caused contact with the genitalia of "any person" with an intent to arouse or gratify (oral sex performed on him by Ms. Lewinsky).

(5) He denied that he made contact with Monica Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia with an intent to arouse or gratify.


On May 6, 1994, former Arkansas state employee Paula Corbin Jones filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against President Clinton claiming that he had sexually harassed her on May 8, 1991, by requesting her to perform oral sex on him in a suite at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock. Throughout the pretrial discovery process in Jones v. Clinton,


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/7groundsi.htm



Clinton was impeached because he lied about having sex with Lewinsky........not because he had sex with Lewinsky

It doesn't matter if they were investigating Whitewater or Clinton for shoplifting he was not impeached for either act......HE WAS IMPEACHED FOR "PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE" in the Paula Jones case/

I'm done and I've wiped.....I cannot say it more clearly
Users browsing this topic
Guest
10 Pages«<2345678910>