# The hard facts driving impeachment fall apart



## Sunsettommy (Jan 30, 2021)

American Thinker

January 30, 2021
*The hard facts driving impeachment fall apart*
By Monica Showalter

Excerpt:

President Trump, who was impeached, no less, in the waning days of his presidency for supposedly starting a riot at the Capitol, is starting to look less and less culpable for what his enemies claimed.

A pipe bomb planted by rioters intended to distract police forces ahead of the Jan. 6 rally Trump spoke at turns out to have been planted on Jan. 5, according to the FBI.

According to The Hill:

      The FBI released a new wanted poster on Friday revealing that two pipe bombs that were placed near the Democratic and Republican party headquarters and discovered during the Capitol riots on Jan. 6 were              planted there the night before.

      According to the newly released information, the bombs were placed between 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on Jan. 5.


LINK

=======

Whooops, there goes the silly incitement argument.

Rushing to judgement was a bad idea from the start.....


----------



## surada (Jan 30, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> American Thinker
> 
> January 30, 2021
> *The hard facts driving impeachment fall apart*
> ...




This is really lame. Trump had been inciting them for 7 or 8 weeks.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 30, 2021)

surada said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > American Thinker
> ...



Another democrat with a fear of reading the posted article, the FBI shows that it was planned for weeks ahead, and nothing to do with Trump. Not only that if you have read the article you would have learned what the former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI has to say about the Trump speech itself, the one stupid Pelosi charged him on.


----------



## MarathonMike (Jan 30, 2021)

Both Impeachments were a complete travesty. Pelosi and the Democrats have turned the Constitution into silly putty and mold into whatever form suits their purpose.


----------



## surada (Jan 30, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Yes. it was planned.. Trump was exciting these crackpots since early November.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 30, 2021)

MarathonMike said:


> Both Impeachments were a complete travesty. Pelosi and the Democrats have turned the Constitution into silly putty and mold into whatever form suits their purpose.



Uh, you guys impeached Bill Clinton over a blow job.  

Colluding with foreign government and inciting riots that get people killed are a lot more serious.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 30, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > Both Impeachments were a complete travesty. Pelosi and the Democrats have turned the Constitution into silly putty and mold into whatever form suits their purpose.
> ...



Liar.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 30, 2021)

surada said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...





Still no evidence that you read the posted article, your ignorance here is making a fool of you, when will you finally get around to reading the INDICTMENT charges?

The FBI makes clear that Trump has nothing to do with the Capital attack, it was a planned attack from November when the losers banded together to plan the attack on the Capital.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 30, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > Both Impeachments were a complete travesty. Pelosi and the Democrats have turned the Constitution into silly putty and mold into whatever form suits their purpose.
> ...



I agree the Clinton never should have been impeached over a stupid blue dress and some dumb sexual dalliance, not even close to high crimes and misdemeanors threshold. 

He was impeached over the January 6 speech doesn't incite people to attack the Capital at all. No he was never charged with "colluding" with the Russians, heck even Mueller stated he didn't in section one of his report.


----------



## surada (Jan 30, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...




Oh I read the article, but its American Thinker. They never get anything right.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 30, 2021)

surada said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...



The internal links shows the Indictment charge and the FBI wanted poster statement, since you didn't notice them, I am calling you a liar.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 30, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...



*I agree the Clinton never should have been impeached over a stupid blue dress and some dumb sexual dalliance, not even close to high crimes and misdemeanors threshold. *

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Not for sex.
He was being sued for sexual harassment.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jan 30, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...



Dude.

That is not what Clinton was impeached for.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 30, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> American Thinker
> 
> January 30, 2021
> *The hard facts driving impeachment fall apart*
> ...




How in the world do you come to that conclusion when Trump has been priming them for this event for weeks and months.

Do you think it was just one speech, the day of the protest????

What did the insurrectionists say when they were arrested?  Who called them there on Jan 6th and what was their purpose?


----------



## OldLady (Jan 30, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> nothing to do with Trump.


Tommy, none of this would have happened if it weren't for T****.  It was ALL about T****, and he could have prevented or stopped it, if he wasn't a barking mad loon.


----------



## surada (Jan 30, 2021)

California man charged with making threats against family of congressman and a journalist
					

The brother of Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-NY, received a message from the man saying, "Stop telling lies; Biden did not win, he will not be president."




					www.nbcnews.com


----------



## Care4all (Jan 30, 2021)

Trump' s Big Lie, that he won by a landslide and the election was stolen from him, a fraud, that he began seeding in his followers minds July 2020, 4 months before the election took place....

is the root cause his followers gathered on Jan 6th....besides Trump inviting them, to take their country back.  Of course his followers were upset, because they believe in his BIG LIE.

For us liberals, we view TRUMP' s intentionally creating this big lie that the election was stolen from him, pushed with the help of his lying friends, as EVIL as it comes, and traitorous.

And it is traitorous, because it is a LIE.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 30, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



His lying was due to the bogus investigation over his sexual dalliance, it was a gross mistake on his part because Starr had nothing else to impeach him on.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 30, 2021)

OldLady said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > nothing to do with Trump.
> ...





So you are going to ignore the Indictment charges and the FBI statements.

Democrats sure have a low regard for evidence, oh they have yet to present any in the thread, did the dog eat it?

You didn't read the article either......


----------



## MisterBeale (Jan 30, 2021)

surada said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > American Thinker
> ...


Well, if that is your logic. . . then the folks that were really inciting them. . . were the folks that were pissing them off. . .


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 30, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> American Thinker
> 
> January 30, 2021
> *The hard facts driving impeachment fall apart*
> ...


Not even close.  He's been inciting for years, and raised it to a fever pitch following the election.

Next


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 30, 2021)

Care4all said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > American Thinker
> ...



Another democrat showing fear of reading the article that shows the violence was planned for weeks and against both parties headquarters and the Capital building. Trump main impeachment charge is based on the January 6 Speech, the Georgia phone call is a minor second charge.

Don't you people do any research at all?

Ignorance is all your fault.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 30, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > American Thinker
> ...



Yet another ignorant democrat not reading the DOJ and FBI statements found in the article that makes clear the attacks was planned weeks ago.

You people on vapors?


----------



## OldLady (Jan 30, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


Well, who were these three Oath Keepers conspiring to defend?  Why did they choose the Capitol on the day of the EC objections and vote?   That's my point.  Of course their plan was about T**** and his claim that the election was stolen.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > Both Impeachments were a complete travesty. Pelosi and the Democrats have turned the Constitution into silly putty and mold into whatever form suits their purpose.
> ...



No...he was impeached for committing perjury and obstructing justice.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 31, 2021)

OldLady said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



The election was stolen.......you guys can lie to yourselves all you want, but it is the truth.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jan 31, 2021)

Trump began inciting violence from day one. He had a pattern of crossing the line then being sure to toss in some cheap plausible deniability slop like "We don't want any violence. No violence" to cover his ass with a smile, wink, and nod. Like it or not, that constitutes a "hard" pattern of illegal incitement and neglect. See, there's this thing:


> The vice-president-elect is sworn in first, and repeats the same oath of office, in use since 1884, as senators, representatives, and other federal employees:
> 
> "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
> 
> ...


You can run and squirm,  but you just can't hide from what you swore to "preserve, protect, and defend."


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jan 31, 2021)

A timeline of hate: Trump’s history of encouraging violence, from 2015 to 2021
					

Trump has emboldened hate groups and political violence from the moment he announced his presidency.




					www.vox.com


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 31, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> I agree the Clinton never should have been impeached over a stupid blue dress and some dumb sexual dalliance, not even close to high crimes and misdemeanors threshold.



you mean in retrospect, you believe that.  Frankly, the right wing was all for impeaching him over the blow job, and considered it treason that so many Republicans didn't go along. 



Sunsettommy said:


> He was impeached over the January 6 speech doesn't incite people to attack the Capital at all. No he was never charged with "colluding" with the Russians, heck even Mueller stated he didn't in section one of his report.



Trump was colluding with the Ukrainians to dig up dirt or falsify information on Biden's son. that is criminal.  

So is inciting a riot.  Seriously, you call a few thousand inbred rednecks to Washington, scream at them that "those people" stole the election, and then act all surprised when they storm the capitol saying, "Hang Mike Pence"?  

The sad thing isn't that Trump was unfit for the Presidency, it was that so many people who KNEW he was unfit continued to enable him for four years, when they could have easily dumped him and got 99% of what they wanted with Mike Pence.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 31, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Not for sex.
> He was being sued for sexual harassment.



which had nothing to do with a consensual relationship he had with someone who wasn't a subordinate. 

The pure hypocrisy was the people who impeached him over a blow job were the same people who were cheating on their own wives (Gingrich, Hyde, Livingstone) or paying off men they fucked when they were teenage boys (Hastert).   



Chuz Life said:


> Dude.
> 
> That is not what Clinton was impeached for.



Um, yeah, it was, Bible Boy.   the only way they could prove he "lied" was that to illegally tape Ms. Lewinsky and then threaten her whole family with prison if she didn't testify they way they wanted her to.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No...he was impeached for committing perjury and obstructing justice.



Except that the question he lied about was already ruled by the judge to be immaterial to the case that was being heard.   Before she dismissed the entire case as having absolutely no merit.  

The only two material question in Jones v. Clinton were  

1 ) Did Clinton sexually harass Jones?

This in and of itself is questionable.  She claimed that Clinton's male member had a "distinguishing characteristic" , something that is not born out by Clinton's extensive medical files or any of the women who had sex with him who didn't claim he harassed them.  So it's very possible she was straight up lying. 

2)  If he did, did she suffer any professional retaliation from refusing his advances.  

The thing was, she didn't.  She wasn't demoted.  She wasn't denied any promotions. She wasn't fired.  She quit the job on her own.  Under the federal statue she was suing under, she wasn't entitled to any damages.  

The ironic thing is that she is STILL on the hook for the legal fees she ran up being used by the Right Wing to smear Clinton.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 31, 2021)

MarathonMike said:


> Both Impeachments were a complete travesty. Pelosi and the Democrats have turned the Constitution into silly putty and mold into whatever form suits their purpose.



Firstly, Donald Trump should never have been a Presidential candidate.  A criminal with his history of bankruptcy, fraud, and dishonest dealings should never have been allowed to be the candidate of any major political party.  

If the Senate had done its job and removed him the first time, 425,000 Americans would not have died.  The first impeachment for extortion, bribery, and trying to get a foreign government to investigate his political enemies, should have ended this nonsense.  The Senate said that they agreed that Trump was guilty, but they felt the American people should have make the decision.

The American people resoundingly voted Trump out of office.  Since they had never voted him into office in the first place, this is hardly surprising.  Trump was elected by the Electoral College, not the people.  The people voted for Hillary.  But the American voters spoke - LOUDLY.  And still Trump refused to go.

Trump sent an angry mob to the Capital to prevent his being tossed from office.  People were killed.  Every Trump job ends with Trump going to the courts to force people who have fired him, to continue him running their property into the ground, Trump exhausting all court challenges, and still refusing to go, and the sheriff coming in and changing the locks on the doors.  This one is no different, except this time Trump ordered a mob to stop them from firing them.

Damn Skippy this impeachment is just.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jan 31, 2021)

You know, it takes a special combination of stupidity and dishonesty to use a word like "incite", be proven unable to provide ANY statement that fits the description, and then just keep repeating the accusation like a good little sheeple.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 31, 2021)

Dogmaphobe said:


> You know, it takes a special combination of stupidity and dishonesty to use a word like "incite", be proven unable to provide ANY statement that fits the description, and then just keep repeating the accusation like a good little sheeple.



Trump called the demonstration.
Trump told them to march on the Capitol
Trump told them they had to "fight".  

Um, yeah, Trump incited a riot.  Deal with it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 31, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> His lying was due to the bogus investigation over his sexual dalliance,



His lying was because he sexually harassed Paula Jones, she sued him and he lied under oath.
Nothing bogus about it.

*it was a gross mistake on his part *

Lying under oath usually is a mistake.

*because Starr had nothing else to impeach him on. *

Yeah, his delaying tactics were almost 100% successful.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 31, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


Unless they were planned before November 3, 2016 they don't predate tRump's incitements and lies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Not for sex.
> ...



*which had nothing to do with a consensual relationship he had with someone who wasn't a subordinate. *

Who said it did?

*The pure hypocrisy was.... *

Oh my!! Hypocrisy in DC? LOL!


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 31, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > His lying was due to the bogus investigation over his sexual dalliance,
> ...



In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit accusing Clinton of sexual harassment *when he was governor of Arkansas,* that isn't an impeachable offense since it didn't occur during his time as President and her lawsuit was later thrown out in 1998, and the dumb Lewinsky affair was never a impeachable offense from the start. 

Yes he lied (inside of the bogus Starr investigation frame), yes he slept around, but the *unfair* Starr investigation made a mockery of justice since the sexual misbehavior with Lewinsky was never impeachable offense, and the Jones lawsuit was about his Governors days was never settled to prove Clintons guilt, it was thrown out in 1998

Clinton was clearly a victim of Partisan Politics, a victim of a fishing Starr investigation, the bullshit he had to endure for several years.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > Both Impeachments were a complete travesty. Pelosi and the Democrats have turned the Constitution into silly putty and mold into whatever form suits their purpose.
> ...


clinton wasnt impeached for a blowjob,, and you thinking so dismiss's you from any further rational discussions,,


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 31, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



_In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit accusing Clinton of sexual harassment *when he was governor of Arkansas,* that isn't an impeachable offense since it didn't occur during his time as President _

Yup. And his perjury and obstruction of justice occurred during his time as President.

_and her lawsuit was later thrown out in 1998, and the dumb Lewinsky affair was never a impeachable offense from the start. _

Who said his affair was an impeachable offense? Link?

_the Jones lawsuit was about his Governors days was never settled to prove Clintons guilt_

He paid $850,000 to settle it.

_Clinton was clearly a victim of Partisan Politics, a victim of a fishing Starr investigation_

Awwwww.....poor guy. Never did nuffin'.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jan 31, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


Paula Jones was a state employee.
Clinton was her boss.
He dropped his pants and asked to be serviced.
That is clear case of on the job sexual harassment.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 31, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



In all the mess you have ZERO guilty verdicts against Clinton to write about, that is why your arguments ultimately fails.

The lawsuit was thrown out (Ooops Clinton was still innocent)  but she had made clear she was going to continue her legal pursuits against him, thus the 850,000 settlement to stop her from future legal harassments.

The Starr report you never read included the Jones allegations as part of the investigation, the Lewinsky affair was never an impeachable offense (notice you don't dispute it) at any time. Clintons mistake was to lie and obstruct during the investigation over sexual events that were never impeachable from day one. It boggles my mind why he felt the need to lie when Starr had no case against him on sexual dalliance with Monica at all.

It was a Politically driven investigation from the start, which is why it ultimately failed.

Will end this with an admission from Starr himself:

LINK

*"Partial retraction*
In January 2020, while testifying as a defense lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump during his Senate impeachment trial, Starr himself would retract some of the allegations he made in the report.[1] Slate journalist Jeremy Stahl pointed out that as he was urging the Senate not to remove Trump as president, Starr contradicted various arguments he used in 1998 to justify Clinton's impeachment.[1] *In defending Trump, Starr also claimed he was wrong to have called for impeachment against Clinton for abuse of executive privilege and efforts to obstruct Congress *and *also stated that the House Judiciary Committee was right in 1998 to have rejected one of the planks for impeachment he had advocated for*.[1] He also invoked a 1999 Hofstra Law Review article by Yale law professor Akhil Amar, who argued that the Clinton impeachment proved just how impeachment and removal causes "grave disruption" to a national election."

_bolding mine

 _


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 31, 2021)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The Jones lawsuit was thrown out in 1998.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 31, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



*In all the mess you have ZERO guilty verdicts against Clinton to write about, that is why your arguments ultimately fails. *

As I said, "Yeah, his delaying tactics were almost 100% successful"

*The lawsuit was thrown out*

And then she appealed and the Supreme Court allowed it to continue. 

*The Starr report you never read included the Jones allegations as part of the investigation, *

Lots of Bill's sleazy activities were included.

*the Lewinsky affair was never an impeachable offense (notice you don't dispute it) at any time. *

I never claimed it was. Ever.

*Clintons mistake was to lie and obstruct during the investigation *

Yes, perjury and obstruction of justice are mistakes and impeachable offenses.

*It was a Politically driven investigation from the start,*

Yup. Politics can get political.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 31, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



She appealed, she received $850,000 to drop the appeal.


----------



## surada (Jan 31, 2021)

OldLady said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > nothing to do with Trump.
> ...




All five of Trump's lawyers have quit.









						Trump to Defend Self After Receiving Law Degree from Trump University
					

In his first official statement as the lead attorney of his defense team, Trump vowed not to quit the team “like those other losers.”




					www.newyorker.com


----------



## Hang on Sloopy (Jan 31, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> American Thinker
> 
> January 30, 2021
> *The hard facts driving impeachment fall apart*
> ...


Been sayin....See ya at the trial.LOLOL

This was an obvious hoax....................LOLOL

i guess he'll represent himself. This will be the 2nd most watched world event since the moon................................LOLOLOL


----------



## Hang on Sloopy (Jan 31, 2021)

surada said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


Going to be great too. He'll slit their guts open...lol


----------



## Leo123 (Jan 31, 2021)

surada said:


> This is really lame. Trump had been inciting them for 7 or 8 weeks.


If calling for a peaceful protest is inciting anyone, then the whole democrat leadership needs to be brought up on charges for doing much more than that.   Remember? Biden was going to physically beat up Trump, Watters told people to harass Trump followers, Pelosi called him unfit, said he lies and much more.


----------



## Leo123 (Jan 31, 2021)

surada said:


> Yes. it was planned.. Trump was exciting these crackpots since early November.


Utter bullshit, prove it.


----------



## surada (Jan 31, 2021)

Leo123 said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. it was planned.. Trump was exciting these crackpots since early November.
> ...



I have seen a list of the evidence.. If I find it again, I'll post it for you.. Otherwise, wait and see.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jan 31, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



STARR Was wrong, alright.

But, not at the point he later claimed.

The impeachment was legit. Starr's spineless lack of confidence and second guessing, not withstanding.

Klinton was himself a lawyer. 

As a lawyer, he fully understood the seriousness of perjury.

You should read what the worlds earliest lawmakers had to say about perjury, sometime.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 31, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...




I see you bought into the libtard narrative.  Clinton was impeached for PERJURY!


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> clinton wasnt impeached for a blowjob,, and you thinking so dismiss's you from any further rational discussions,,



Then why was there so much discussion at the time about whether or not a blow job is considered sex or not and all this talk about stained dresses?


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > clinton wasnt impeached for a blowjob,, and you thinking so dismiss's you from any further rational discussions,,
> ...


the impeachment was not for a blowjob,,,


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 31, 2021)

Chuz Life said:


> STARR Was wrong, alright.
> 
> But, not at the point he later claimed.
> 
> The impeachment was legit. Starr's spineless lack of confidence and second guessing, not withstanding.



Actually, Starr never should have been investigating that to start with.  He was appointed to investigate the Whitewater Land deal.  Period.  Full fucking stop. 

Again, if lying about a blow job is impeachable, then so is instigating a riot or trying to shake down a foreign government. 




Chuz Life said:


> Klinton was himself a lawyer.
> 
> As a lawyer, he fully understood the seriousness of perjury.
> 
> You should read what the worlds earliest lawmakers had to say about perjury, sometime.



Actually, you should live in the real world.  Just like in the real world, where women get abortions no matter what the law is, in the real world, people shade the truth when they are on the witness stand.  

The "lie" in question here is whether or not he considered a blow job to be sex.  A lot of men don't.  Frankly, a lot of men consider oral gratification to be the new third base.  

I should also point out that when Kenny was President of Baylor University, he actively covered up rampant rapes of co-eds by athletes.... Just more wonderful right wing hypocrisy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 31, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The lawsuit was thrown out*
> 
> And then she appealed and the Supreme Court allowed it to continue.



No, that wasn't the case at all.  SCOTUS ruled on a case called _Burlington v. Ellerth_, which held that a woman COULD sue for sexual harassment EVEN IF there was no professional retaliation against her.  This didn't apply to _Jones v. Clinton_ because Clinton was not really her direct supervisor. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It was a Politically driven investigation from the start,*
> 
> Yup. Politics can get political.



Then you really shouldn't have a problem with going after Trump now that he's out of office.  If lying about a blow job is impeachable, inciting a riot is impeachable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > STARR Was wrong, alright.
> ...



*Actually, Starr never should have been investigating that to start with. He was appointed to investigate the Whitewater Land deal. Period. Full fucking stop. *

Independent Counsels are cool, eh?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 31, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Actually, Starr never should have been investigating that to start with. He was appointed to investigate the Whitewater Land deal. Period. Full fucking stop. *
> 
> Independent Counsels are cool, eh?



Actually, no.  

The problem with IC"s in general is that they are going to damn well find someone guilty of something. 

We saw that with Lawrence Walsh, who couldn't get Reagan or Bush on anything related to Iran-Contra (because they hadn't actually broken any laws), but he went after Cap Weinberger for perjury because he said he hadn't kept a diary, but he did submit meeting notes to the national archive.   And Cap was the guy in the room who had the good sense to say selling weapons to the Iranians was probably a terrible idea.  

We saw that with Patrick Fitzgerald, who didn't go after the anti-war Circle Jerk of Armitage-Novak-Wilson for outing Wilson's wife...  But he went after Scooter Libby for not remembering a conversation with Tim Russert the same way Tim remembered it. 

And yes, we saw that with Ken Starr, who was supposed to be investigating a land deal and ended up investigating Clinton's sex life. 

Now that said, I do think we need a reformed IC statue, but one where they are ONLY focused on the thing they are supposed to be investigating... not process crimes or side issues.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *The lawsuit was thrown out*
> ...



*No, that wasn't the case at all. *

The judge, Susan Webber Wright dismissed, Jones appealed. It went to the Supreme Court and they ruled 9-0 to allow the suit to continue.

*If lying about a blow job is impeachable*

Yes, lying under oath and obstruction of justice when you're being sued for sexual harrassent is impeachable.

*inciting a riot is impeachable.*

To paraphrase Sol Wachtler, you can impeach a ham sandwich.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Actually, Starr never should have been investigating that to start with. He was appointed to investigate the Whitewater Land deal. Period. Full fucking stop. *
> ...



*We saw that with Lawrence Walsh, *

Yeah, he was a twat.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 31, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The judge, Susan Webber Wright dismissed, Jones appealed. It went to the Supreme Court and they ruled 9-0 to allow the suit to continue.



you are getting a bit confused here, buddy.  

The first issue was that Judge Wright ruled that a sitting president couldn't be held to a civil suit, which is what SCOTUS ruled 9-0 on.   

She eventually dismissed the case as having no merit because Jones couldn't show any damages to her career as Assistant Possum Catcher, or whatever it was she did down there. 

Now, she was ready to appeal this, based on the Ellerth Decision, but both sides realized that another five years of appeals wasn't worth it.  Clinton agreed to pay a lot less than what she was asking for, and Jones dropped her insistance on an apology for something that probably never happened.  

The ironic tragedy is that in the real world, this kind of case never would have gotten that far.  They are almost always settled early on. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, lying under oath and obstruction of justice when you're being sued for sexual harrassent is impeachable.



Except the lies had no material effect on a case that was dismissed without merit. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> To paraphrase Sol Wachtler, you can impeach a ham sandwich.



You probably can.  The thing was, 67% of Americans at the time thought that Clinton shouldn't be impeached. 

As opposed to Trump, where clear majorities favored BOTH of his impeachments.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 31, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *We saw that with Lawrence Walsh, *
> 
> Yeah, he was a twat.



yes, he was. He also showed the problem with the process.   

The guys he should have gone after were Poindexter and NOrth, who had illegally stolen funds from the sale of weapons to Iran (which was perfectly legal) and diverted them to the Contras.  The problem is, Congress had given them immunity hoping they'd break bad on Reagan, and they didn't.   So their convictions didn't hold up.  At that point, they should have folded up their tents and went home.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The judge, Susan Webber Wright dismissed, Jones appealed. It went to the Supreme Court and they ruled 9-0 to allow the suit to continue.
> ...



*you are getting a bit confused here, buddy. *

Not really, pal.

*Except the lies had no material effect on a case that was dismissed without merit.*

Oh, some perjury is allowed....that's nice. Do they hand you a list before your testify?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *We saw that with Lawrence Walsh, *
> ...



*yes, he was. He also showed the problem with the process. *

Yeah, the Dems didn't see the problem.....until Starr. 

*who had illegally stolen funds from the sale of weapons to Iran (which was perfectly legal) and diverted them to the Contras. *

The diversion was theft, or they skimmed from the sales?

*The problem is, Congress had given them immunity hoping they'd break bad on Reagan, *

Yeah, I laughed at their stupidity (the Dems).


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 31, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *you are getting a bit confused here, buddy. *
> 
> Not really, pal.



Um, yeah, really.  You are conflating Judge Wright's dismissal of the case in 

On December 28, 1994, Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that a sitting President could not be sued and deferred the case until the conclusion of his term, essentially granting him temporary immunity (although she allowed the pre-trial discovery phase of the case to proceed without delay in order to start the trial as soon as Clinton left office).[3] 

This is different from the ruling she made on APril 1, 1998 that Jones had no standing to sue because she had suffered no damages under the law.  

These were two different rulings on two separate legal issues.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *you are getting a bit confused here, buddy. *
> ...



*Um, yeah, really. You are conflating Judge Wright's dismissal of the case in *

No, I'm really not. She dismissed, Jones appealed. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0.
The case continued. She dismissed again. Jones appealed again.
Clinton settled for $850,000.

No confusion here.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 1, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, I'm really not. She dismissed, Jones appealed. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0.
> The case continued. She dismissed again. Jones appealed again.
> Clinton settled for $850,000.
> 
> No confusion here.



Well, yeah, there's a lot of confusion....  You claimed SCOTUS overturned Wright's second ruling, the one that dismissed the case as having no merit.  

Her first ruling only would have delayed the trial until after Clinton was out of office, which in retrospect, was probably a good idea.   I mean, it would have been nice of Clinton had been paying attention to Bin Laden rather than fighting a nuisance lawsuit.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Feb 1, 2021)

> begin presenting to the Senate their case that the president obstructed justice in the Jones lawsuit and lied about it before a federal grand jury.
> 
> Clinton reached a settlement with Mrs. Jones on November 13 after four years of litigation.
> 
> ...


Good times. Starr was a political hack and out of his mind, but I think the outcome had an immediate chilling effect on sexist pigs like Slick and renewed women's confidence in the court system, so it's all good. Like the OJ decision, only an idiot could believe Slick didn't often use his political power to coerce women into having sexual relations with him under threat of losing their jobs. He's a sick fuck who got caught lying under oath so deserved impeachment, lying under oath being against the oath of office he swore to uphold coming straight from the Constitution. Fuck both Clintons. Fuck Democrats. Fuck Republicans.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 1, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> You claimed SCOTUS overturned Wright's second ruling,



Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 1, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm really not. She dismissed, Jones appealed. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0.
> ...



*I mean, it would have been nice of Clinton had been paying attention to Bin Laden rather than fighting a nuisance lawsuit. *

I mean, it would have been nice of Clinton had been paying attention to Bin Laden rather than getting blowjobs in the Oval Office. And trying to cover them up. By obstructing justice. And committing perjury.


----------



## San Souci (Feb 1, 2021)

surada said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > American Thinker
> ...


No .The MEDIA has been inciting riots for FOUR years.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 1, 2021)

Chuz Life said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It seems you don't read my comments very well since several times I have stated that *Clinton lied* during the Starr investigation, already accepted that fact from the start.

He was impeached for the lying, but the investigation was started over some sexual activities, which are NOT high crimes and misdemeanors.


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 2, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



You are simply WRONG.

The investigation was NOT  started over a sexual affair. 

More to the point, Klinton (as a lawyer) knew better thsn to lie under oath, no matter WHAT the investigation was about.

Period.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 2, 2021)

surada said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > American Thinker
> ...




There is no hope for you....none..


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Feb 2, 2021)

The Democrats are making fools of themselves with their bogus impeachments.
They have lost all credibility with any reasonable person. 
It will affect them badly in future elections.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Feb 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The thing was, 67% of Americans at the time thought that Clinton shouldn't be impeached.


In that sense we've evolved somewhat, thank goodness. Jeffrey Epstein was still thought of fondly back then as well.


----------



## Mac1958 (Feb 2, 2021)

surada said:


> This is really lame. Trump had been inciting them for 7 or 8 weeks.


This has building for far, far longer than that.  Seems to me that's been the Democrats' big mistake here.  They should be looking at the bigger picture.

Trump has been feeding this anger and paranoia since Escalator Day.  And talk radio and the internet since long before that.  This has been building for many years.

Trump was _*more than willing *_to be the match that finally lit the fire, because he has his damaged ego to protect.   He needs to be held accountable for that.


----------



## Flash (Feb 2, 2021)

This impeachment bullshit is just like the silly insurrection bullshit.  Nothing more than a diversion for the Useful Idiots to take the spotlight away from the fact the Democrats stole the election with the scam of unverified mail in ballots in the Democrat controlled swing districts.

The Useful Idiots are falling for it hook, line and sinker.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 2, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> American Thinker
> 
> January 30, 2021
> *The hard facts driving impeachment fall apart*
> ...


"American Thinker"

lol

Unreliable source, subjective, wrongheaded rightwing opinion completely devoid of merit.

Impeachment has already happened, it's over and done with.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 2, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Good times. Starr was a political hack and out of his mind, but I think the outcome had an immediate chilling effect on sexist pigs like Slick and renewed women's confidence in the court system, so it's all good. Like the OJ decision, only an idiot could believe Slick didn't often use his political power to coerce women into having sexual relations with him under threat of losing their jobs. He's a sick fuck who got caught lying under oath so deserved impeachment, lying under oath being against the oath of office he swore to uphold coming straight from the Constitution. Fuck both Clintons. Fuck Democrats. Fuck Republicans.



Okay, a couple of points.  Ken Starr talked to every woman Clinton looked at, and he didn't find one case of a "quid-pro-quo" or someone being forced to have sex under threat of losing her job.  

He repeated the lies of Juanita Brodderick and Kathleen Willey, but it's pretty clear he didn't believe them. 

Was he a philanderer? Yup.  So where most of the Republicans trying to bring him down. Henry Hyde broke up a marriage.  Newt was doing a lobbyist while cheating on his wife.  Denny Hastert was paying hush money to boys he molested in High School.  

What he did was wrong... it just wasn't impeachable.  Impeachment should be for serious crimes and abuses of office, not lying in a nuisance lawsuit.


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 2, 2021)

__





						One moment, please...
					





					iriemade.com


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > American Thinker
> ...



It is clear you didn't read the article, here is what you missed:



> Another democrat with a fear of reading the posted article, the FBI shows that it was planned for weeks ahead, and nothing to do with Trump. Not only that if you have read the article you would have learned what the former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI has to say about the Trump speech itself, the one stupid Pelosi charged him on.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 3, 2021)

Chuz Life said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except people are almost never prosecuted for it, and even more rarely in civil cases.  

So let me get this straight.  Lying about a blow job is impeachable. 

Organizing an angry mob of racists, riling them up and then directing them to attack Congress isn't.


----------



## surada (Feb 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Good times. Starr was a political hack and out of his mind, but I think the outcome had an immediate chilling effect on sexist pigs like Slick and renewed women's confidence in the court system, so it's all good. Like the OJ decision, only an idiot could believe Slick didn't often use his political power to coerce women into having sexual relations with him under threat of losing their jobs. He's a sick fuck who got caught lying under oath so deserved impeachment, lying under oath being against the oath of office he swore to uphold coming straight from the Constitution. Fuck both Clintons. Fuck Democrats. Fuck Republicans.
> ...











						How the Christian Right Helped Foment Insurrection
					

Christian-right activists inside and outside of government promoted the election fraud lie and claimed God told them to “let the church roar”




					www.rollingstone.com
				




*The January 6th Save America March*, where then-President Donald Trump incited a crowd to attack the U.S. Capitol, opened with a prayer. Trump’s longtime spiritual adviser and White House adviser, the Florida televangelist Paula White, called on God to “give us a holy boldness in this hour.” 

Standing at the same podium where, an hour later, Trump would exhort the crowd to “fight like hell,” White called the election results into question, asking God to let the people “have the assurance of a fair and a just election.” Flanked by a row of American flags, White implored God to “let every adversary against democracy, against freedom, against life, against liberty, against justice, against peace, against righteousness be overturned right now in the name of Jesus.” .....


----------



## Grumblenuts (Feb 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ken Starr talked to every woman Clinton looked at


Even if that were possible, you'd take Ken's word for it on that? Why?


> Was he a philanderer? Yup. So where most of the Republicans trying to bring him down. Henry Hyde broke up a marriage. Newt was doing a lobbyist while cheating on his wife. Denny Hastert was paying hush money to boys he molested in High School.
> 
> What he did was wrong... it just wasn't impeachable. Impeachment should be for serious crimes and abuses of office, not lying in a nuisance lawsuit.


That too. Whataboutism and two wrongs make a right? How about lying about bombing a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan "a week after the Monica Lewinsky scandal and two months after the film Wag the Dog, prompting some commentators to describe the attack as a distraction for the public from the scandal." What amounts to "serious crimes and abuses of office" remains undefined, thank goodness. How about NAFTA and otherwise being the Republican Party's wet dream? Maybe if we had really made an example of and gotten rid of that filthy piece of sexist shit sooner..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > __
> ...



*Lying about a blow job is impeachable. *

Lying, under oath, about sex with a subordinate when you're being sued for sexually harassing another subordinate.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 3, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> That too. Whataboutism and two wrongs make a right? How about lying about bombing a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan "a week after the Monica Lewinsky scandal and two months after the film Wag the Dog, prompting some commentators to describe the attack as a distraction for the public from the scandal." What amounts to "serious crimes and abuses of office" remains undefined, thank goodness. How about NAFTA and otherwise being the Republican Party's wet dream? Maybe if we had really made an example of and gotten rid of that filthy piece of sexist shit sooner..



Okay, here's the thing.  Everyone called his attempts to take out Bin Laden "Wag the Dog".  

And then Bin Laden made 9/11 happen, and no one said that anymore. 

Your argument about Clinton was he wasn't left-wing crazy enough?


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 3, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Lying, under oath, about sex with a subordinate when you're being sued for sexually harassing another subordinate.



Um, yeah, it's still a lie about a blow job.  Just not that big of a deal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Lying, under oath, about sex with a subordinate when you're being sued for sexually harassing another subordinate.
> ...



Yup, lying under oath when you're getting sued is fine.....if Joe says so.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Feb 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > That too. Whataboutism and two wrongs make a right? How about lying about bombing a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan "a week after the Monica Lewinsky scandal and two months after the film Wag the Dog, prompting some commentators to describe the attack as a distraction for the public from the scandal." What amounts to "serious crimes and abuses of office" remains undefined, thank goodness. How about NAFTA and otherwise being the Republican Party's wet dream? Maybe if we had really made an example of and gotten rid of that filthy piece of sexist shit sooner..
> ...


_Did I stutter?_ No, I don't think so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > That too. Whataboutism and two wrongs make a right? How about lying about bombing a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan "a week after the Monica Lewinsky scandal and two months after the film Wag the Dog, prompting some commentators to describe the attack as a distraction for the public from the scandal." What amounts to "serious crimes and abuses of office" remains undefined, thank goodness. How about NAFTA and otherwise being the Republican Party's wet dream? Maybe if we had really made an example of and gotten rid of that filthy piece of sexist shit sooner..
> ...



*Everyone called his attempts to take out Bin Laden "Wag the Dog". *

When did he actually attempt to "take him out"?

Bill Clinton and the missed opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden - The Washington Post


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 3, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yup, lying under oath when you're getting sued is fine.....if Joe says so.



Reality, everyone does it.  

I remember when I had to sue a tenant to get him out of my building, and my attorney went over my testimony with me for about an hour so I wouldn't admit anything that would be damaging to my case.  If he wasn't encouraging me to commit perjury he was getting darned close to the line.   Fortunately, it never came to me having to testify because the deadbeat unassed the building a couple days before the hearing.  



Grumblenuts said:


> _Did I stutter?_ No, I don't think so.



NO, you just said something so incredibly stupid that even people who agree with you roll their eyes. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> When did he actually attempt to "take him out"?



20 August 1998  

Republicans accused him of wagging the dog.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, lying under oath when you're getting sued is fine.....if Joe says so.
> ...



*Reality, everyone does it. *

Of course....why bother putting people under oath.

*20 August 1998 

Republicans accused him of wagging the dog.*

Once, awesome! That's a shame, he'd done such a good job against the bad guys up to that point. Durr.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 3, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Reality, everyone does it. *
> 
> Of course....why bother putting people under oath.



Why indeed?  I promise by the imaginary fairy in the sky that my self-serving story is the truth.   Um, yeah, that will work.  

That's why we have judges and juries, to assess the truthfulness of witnesses, and the RELEVENCE of testimony. 

Whether or not he got a blow job was completely irrelevent to what she was suing for. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Once, awesome! That's a shame, he'd done such a good job against the bad guys up to that point. Durr.



No more than Bush spending 8 years trying to get Bin Laden, spending a trillion dollars, invading a bunch of countries and the guy was still hiding out in a suburb in Pakistan watching porn.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Whether or not he got a blow job was completely irrelevent to what she was suing for.



Asking a state employee for a blow job.....getting blow jobs in the White House from an employee.

Yeah, no pattern of behavior there........


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 4, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Asking a state employee for a blow job.....getting blow jobs in the White House from an employee.
> 
> Yeah, no pattern of behavior there........



Big difference is he didn't have to ask Lewinsky, she volunteered.  

So no pattern...


----------

