Cain
Straussian
Oh, no you don't. We have to suffer the full four years -- and maybe eight. Then again, I didn't think we could do worse than the awesomely ignorant W, so maybe the public doesn't learn from these disasters.
What do you think "Whataboutism" is?
You're entire argument is "But the other side got to do it!" (or do something similar, or literally did anything ever.)
It has nothing to do with whataboutism, it has to do with precedent. You went for the ”will no one think about the children” claim. To be perfectly honest, you would be hard pressed to find a president that someone has not claimed has scarred shildren, most recently Obama scarred plenty of children (hell in Yemen he didn’t just scar them, he blew them into tiny bits on the way to a wedding).
Now if you were calling for Obama’s impeachment for scarring children, I will withdraw my comment.
Y’all got a link?
In practical terms the Democrats have to have a slam dunk with evidence so bad it would force enough vulnerable Republicans to vote for impeachment. They really need the pee video. Esoteric banking violations and campaign finance violations won't do. They need, a smoking gun on Russia qui pro quo. It's got to be a smoking gun even the people who go to his rallies would understand (not that their kind would care).
It has nothing to do with whataboutism, it has to do with precedent. You went for the ”will no one think about the children” claim. To be perfectly honest, you would be hard pressed to find a president that someone has not claimed has scarred shildren, most recently Obama scarred plenty of children (hell in Yemen he didn’t just scar them, he blew them into tiny bits on the way to a wedding).
....
Obama didn’t get impeached for that, hell he didn’t get impeached for his extrajudicial murder drone program, why would trump get impeached for much less?
Is that what we're impeaching him for?I guess then you're all for Trumps version of the extrajudicial murder drone program where he has the families of the terrorists killed too?
Is that what we're impeaching him for?
I guess then you're all for Trumps version of the extrajudicial murder drone program where he has the families of the terrorists killed too?
Impeach him for assault. Have you seen how he’s been beating the Democrats? It’s brutal!
Impeach him for vandalism. He has broken the left!
![]()
Impeach him for sodomy, he's... well, you get the picture.
Which makes sense, when you think about it. If that much of the country feels that strongly about it, then yeah, the president probably should go along or get out.If a majority of the House and a two-thirds majority of the Senate agree, wearing white after Labor Day is an impeachable offence...
Which makes sense, when you think about it. If that much of the country feels that strongly about it, then yeah, the president probably should go along or get out.
Broken it so bad that every candidate Trump has endorsed has lost to a Dem in deep, DEEP red states where Dems haven't been elected in decades.Impeach him for vandalism. He has broken the left!
![]()
Impeach him for vandalism. He has broken the left!
![]()
Impeach him for sodomy, he's... well, you get the picture.
I don't think "smoking gun" is the right word. What the American people need is something easy to understand. Whitewater, whatever the hell it was about, was far too complicated for anyone to care. You couldn't get anybody to stay awake long enough to decide if the Clintons were victims of a scam or somehow the beneficiaries of it. But rubbing up against your intern while your wife is in the other room, that'll grab a headline.
I see this all the time regarding the Clinton impeachment and was wondering if you have a citation for Bill Clinton being impeached for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky? As I recall, Clinton was impeached for perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice in a sexual harassment lawsuit.
I see this all the time regarding the Clinton impeachment and was wondering if you have a citation for Bill Clinton being impeached for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky? As I recall, Clinton was impeached for perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice in a sexual harassment lawsuit.
Bonus question: If a Fortune 500 CEO had an office affair, was sued for sexual harassment, and then lied about it under oath, had other people lie under oath about it, and concealed evidence, would that be acceptable? Why or why not? Would it depend on the political affiliation of the CEO?
In the same way you can arrest someone for no reason and still arrest them for resisting arrest if they resist, sure.
Your position seems to be that if Trump perjures himself, suborns perjury, or obstructs justice, you would be against his impeachment? Is that correct?
We all kind of accept lying under certain circumstances, and perhaps that is where people go off the rails to deciding it's okay to lie under oath. But lawyers are officers of the court, and so for a lawyer to lie under oath is treated as an especially serious offense.
That said, I generally agree with the outcome of the Clinton impeachment. It was a serious matter and deserved a trial, but at the same time, it was not the kind of thing a President should be removed for.
*Sighs* I'm saying that the validity and point of the question being asked matters, nothing more, nothing less.
I'm sorry, but it really doesn't. Can you cite anywhere in the law where it's acceptable to perjure yourself? Or tell other people to perjure themselves? Or to obstruct justice?
Technically speaking we have had two presidents impeached--both Clinton and Johnson. Impeachment is essentially like an indictment; a finding that sufficient evidence exists to warrant a trial. It is true that neither Clinton nor Johnson was convicted in the trial or removed from office, but both were impeached.
The "Using 80 million dollars of tax payer money to determine if the President had the chubby girl who brought in the mail blow him is unnecessary" precedent was clearly set in the "No Crap Sherlock Act of Two Thousand and Always."
I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing politics.
ETA: Or not even politics, base reality. Look at it this way... what did the Clinton impeachment accomplish? What problem did the country have before that it didn't have after other than too much free time and enough not enough political drama to make it happy?
Again if you just have to pat one side on the back for being "technically correct, the best kind of correct".... you do you.
Outside of providing the always super important "Whataboutism" I don't really care what happened to Clinton to justify anything that should or shouldn't happen to Trump.
It's not "Whataboutism", it's precedent. And hypocrisy.
Clinton should have been impeached.
I'm counting on Congress to hold Trump accountable. We are not a nation aligned with dictators and despots. We are a nation aligned with the free world even if it is flawed.And there it is right there. People are counting on this Impeachment thing to save the nation from Trump, ....
That's what people always hide their Whataboutism behind.
Cool.
You are aware we're talking about Trump, not Clinton, right?
So precedent has no place in your concept of jurisprudence? Anyone pointing to the history of previous similar cases is engaging in "Whataboutism"?
When it's the only argument, and the discussion of "precedent" and "hypocrisy" never advances beyond "But the other side did / got away with" then yes.
What legal precedent do you really think needs to be set? Impeachment is spelled out in the Constitution. That's peak "Precedent has been set."
Let's not forget we are talking about serious crimes here. Nixon broke laws to spy on the Democrats. Trump may have (and looks like he did) encouraged and took advantage of a foreign country hacking into the DNC servers. And it looks like he was well aware and probably involved in (via Cambridge Analytica) the Russian troll farms and bots that flooded social media with false stories and fake accounts.I just think people are seeing a Trump Impeachment as accomplishing a lot more than it would.
It wouldn't be a totally symbolic feel good victory, but it would be mostly one.
1. Impeaching Trump wouldn't put the fear of Impeachment into the other Republicans / Members of Government. ...
This is something I don't get about the "both sides do it" people. Is quality the only metric, or does quantity factor into deciding which side is actually worse?
Let's not forget we are talking about serious crimes here. Nixon broke laws to spy on the Democrats. Trump may have (and looks like he did) encouraged and took advantage of a foreign country hacking into the DNC servers. And it looks like he was well aware and probably involved in (via Cambridge Analytica) the Russian troll farms and bots that flooded social media with false stories and fake accounts.
So this business of brushing this off as just a partisan attempt to overturn an election is bull ****. Let's keep some perspective.