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

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

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.

You're a real barracuda, tail.

Nancy always was the hot one.

No minds will be changed here. Some will always think Trump’s word has more integrity than Stormy Daniels’. I’m not sure I would trust either all that much but she has nicer boobs which could be the deciding factor.

She was telling her story previously and it hasn’t changed much. Cohen’s story continues to evolve. And her boobs.....

But wgaf unless laws were broken.

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

Nah. I’m not up to anything and it’s not subliminal or anything else.

I will tell you something I’ve noticed about some of my posts lately. Sometimes I post with multiple thoughts in my head and type them as I’m thinking about them but they don’t necessarily flow or connect well into one complete thought. If I was doing something for work or school I’d have to break things up and tie them together or transition better. Instead sometimes they are somewhat fragmented. The thoughts are true to me and coherent but if you tie them all together you could draw a different conclusion tabout what I think than what I really think.

I think it’s a function of being on my phone and not being able to keep up with my thoughts on this keyboard. A verbal conversation would eliminate that appearance. I may have been to harsh in my assessment. I get how it could come accross and how conclusions could be drawn.

I can assure you though if I say something isn’t a big deal or all that relevant to me I mean it. And if I then make a comment (or reverse order) I’m not being passive aggressive or changing my mind or subliminal or have some deep subconscious thing going. I’m probably being lazy or fighting the technology.

No frenzied hatred here, my mongoloid friend, just stating the facts.

Typically glib.
Perhaps you're right though.
Could be Donnie is squeaky clean.

I guess I meant I’m not being subliminal. If someone is brainwashing me then I suppose that’s different. Then again we could be ants living in a giants world and cheeseburgers could be Brussels sprouts.

No frenzied hatred here, my mongoloid friend, just stating the facts.

Ahhhhhh, there it is.......in the neighborhood of a 100 posts without any name calling, not one ****tard or retard or mongoloid.......you sir are truly a breath of fresh air

It’s the right word just a matter if I’m being subliminal or something subliminal is happening to me. I’d know if I am doing it, not if something is doing it to me hot sex

Crow.
For denying that I ever said Trump was squeaky clean.

You don't even understand your own posts.

No silly. For denying wrongdoing.

TG, why is it you almost always target a single element of a single sentence and avoid the thrust of a statement or the overall content of an entire thought or post?

You consistently triage out all the claims/concerns of an adversary until you find what you consider a weak link. And then ya ponce like a hungry wolf. And with condescension.

You avoid real discourse that way ya know. Probably why you do it....?...better to appear to win an argument than to debate in earnest..and maybe...lose...or worse, have a change of mind..

So my bad. You know Donald is dirty. Right? Wrong?

*wonders...do cons need narrow conversations....?

Your MO is amusing to me, though. You're not unfunny. But you do have this annoying habit of cherry picking something small out of an opposing position that you think you can undermine and run with OR, almost as often, insult/critique the person you're in disagreement with in order to escape actual thought and further constructive conversation.

You can always tell tg posts by the signature finishing touches of insult or distain.

Or maybe you really want to help us whiney libs? That it?

Maybe you're offering, in earnest, advice to poor misguided libby souls out of the goodness of your.............nah

So you prefer to speak in generalities? Without specifics?
It's difficult to debate a topic when specific items are removed from the discourse.

In general, I think all politicians who achieve the office of POTUS are "dirty".
Trump, despite being a non-politician, is not unique. Yet you find him more morally repulsive than those slick talking politicos who pull the wool over your eyes with smooth talking.

If I pick out only one aspect of your rebuttals then you should be thankful I stopped there. Instead, you use it as an attempt to discredit my message.
You don't like President Trump. As President. As a man.
That's your right.
But you can either keep it to the facts, or you can continue to retreat to the self-imposed safety of your generalizations and then cry when I dismantle it piecemeal.

I think you just sort of did the same thing he was accusing you of.

You're specifically ignoring the intent of the argument (that you ignore intent to focus in on an irrelevant detail) to focus in on how he stated it.

.

LMAO! Tail picking the context he wants to laugh at. And this is new and suprising how?