Gary Johnson said:
What law did Clinton break?
Perjury. He lied under oath in a video deposition.
Gary Johnson said:
What law did Clinton break?
Gary Johnson said:
What law did Clinton break?
Quote:
There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:
1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.
4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.
5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.
6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.
8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.
9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.
10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.
11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report#cite_note-8][8][/url]
Gary Johnson said:
Would that be a "high crime or misdemeanor"? I was pretty young don't remember much.
We cool with lying to a grand jury about anything?Gary Johnson said:
What law did Clinton break? Lying about a BJ?
MetoliusAg said:
The Ukraine quid pro quo could result in Trump prosecuted multiple ways: election law violations, bribery / extortion, or Hatch Act criminal violations.
And the Ukraine stuff doesn't even include the other ongoing investigations and potential indictments Trump is facing for tax fraud, insurance fraud, bank fraud, paying off Stormy Daniels, and multiple counts of obstruction of justice from the SCO investigation.
(But nothing was illegal!)
This is very reminiscent of 1974-75. With so many different crimes and coverups going on: at some point the dam inevitably breaks, just like it did with Nixon.
Rockdoc said:
Do you have a real job? Just curious.
Wendy 1990 said:
I would love to hear (or read transcripts) of Obama's calls to foreign leaders. Oh wait... those were kept quiet.
MetoliusAg said:
The Ukraine quid pro quo could result in Trump prosecuted multiple ways: election law violations, bribery / extortion, or Hatch Act criminal violations.
Presidents extort foreign countries all the time. Every trade negotiation or tariff is extortion. Asking for a criminal investigation is clearly legal under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.
Bribery & Election law - Supporting a criminal investigation is neither a "thing of value" for either case.
Hatch Act does not apply to presidential powers to pursue criminal investigations.
And the Ukraine stuff doesn't even include the other ongoing investigations and potential indictments Trump is facing for tax fraud, insurance fraud, bank fraud, paying off Stormy Daniels, and multiple counts of obstruction of justice from the SCO investigation.
Trump has been audited by the IRS every year, seriously doubt you got much of a claim there. Bank fraud shows you ignorance on property evaluation. Stormy Daniels: See John Edwards defense, just because Cohen is an idiot who pled guilty to a non-crime doesn't prove anything.
Obstruction of Justice was not found by the Special counsel. Compare Mueller report who couldn't even bring himself to say a crime occurred to the Starr Report who clearly outline the crimes committed by Clinton. Indictment isn't need, Mueller WOULDNT SAY OBSTRUCTION OCCURED/
(But nothing was illegal!) <--- Once again the only true thing you said in this nonsense post
Bingo, Bo. That's the only semi-plausible rationale and defense remaining at the moment for Trump and his supporters.Bo Darville said:
I don't think it warranted removal. Just like this possible current campaign finance violation of trumps.
Nope. Senate will clear him because no crimes have occurred.MetoliusAg said:Bingo, Bo. That's the only semi-plausible rationale and defense remaining at the moment for Trump and his supporters.Bo Darville said:
I don't think it warranted removal. Just like this possible current campaign finance violation of trumps.
There's no longer any doubt what Trump, Rudy, and Mulvaney did, regarding Ukraine.
"It was wrong of Trump, but it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment" is the political cover the GOP Senate will use to vote not guilty....unless a bunch of other impeachable offenses get uncovered in the next 3 months.
MetoliusAg said:Bingo, Bo. That's the only semi-plausible rationale and defense remaining at the moment for Trump and his supporters.Bo Darville said:
I don't think it warranted removal. Just like this possible current campaign finance violation of trumps.
There's no longer any doubt what Trump, Rudy, and Mulvaney did, regarding Ukraine.
"It was wrong of Trump, but it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment" is the political cover the GOP Senate will use to vote not guilty....unless a bunch of other impeachable offenses get uncovered in the next 3 months.
I'm A&M class of '77 and retired.aginlakeway said:Rockdoc said:
Do you have a real job? Just curious.
POTD. And a very fair question.
No, Bo, it isn't all being done for nothing. There are important principles and democratic norms at stake. But as you have indicated numerous times, you don't care what laws Trump breaks and crimes Trump commits.Quote:
All this is for nothing anyway.
Not true. It depends on what other criminal behavior is uncovered. There is a point in the political equation where even Senators of deep red states have to think twice on how far out on a limb they're willing to go in supporting a corrupt Potus.Quote:
Senate won't convict for anything.
MetoliusAg said:No, Bo, it isn't all being done for nothing. There are important principles and democratic norms at stake. But as you have indicated numerous times, you don't care what laws Trump breaks and crimes Trump commits.Quote:
All this is for nothing anyway.Not true. It depends on what other criminal behavior is uncovered. There is a point in the political equation where even Senators of deep red states have to think twice on how far out on a limb they're willing to go in supporting a corrupt Potus.Quote:
Senate won't convict for anything.
Rockdoc said:
What did he do that was corrupt?
Bo Darville said:Rockdoc said:
What did he do that was corrupt?
Won an election against a democrat. That's the heart of all of this.
You need to know Stephenvilles history. He attacked Bush with the same vigor. And he turned on McCain in a heartbeat.
He only cares about advancing liberalism and always has. But at least I'm honest about my intentions.