The hard facts driving impeachment fall apart

[JoeB131]

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]

One moment, please...

iriemade.com

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.....

"American Thinker"

lol

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

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

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]

One moment, please...

iriemade.com

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]

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.

How the Christian Right Helped Foment Insurrection

Trump administration loyalists launched their own Christian organization to “stop the steal,” an act of loyalty to their divine leader.

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]

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]

One moment, please...

iriemade.com

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Grumblenuts]

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?

Did I stutter? No, I don't think so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

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]

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.

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.

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

20 August 1998

Republicans accused him of wagging the dog.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

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

20 August 1998

Republicans accused him of wagging the dog.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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...