Constitutional Question

[Estebonrober]

Yeah, I recognize that the phrase 'misdemeanours' here is one that has Common Law behind it. But, it's not a complete definition.

Biden gets caught jaywalking. Impeach!

Maybe I’m young but my interpretation of it has always been extra-legal since my introduction to it was Clinton. You can say what you want about professional ethics and maybe disbarment or censure for his actions, but clearly impeaching him was an overt political action and had little to do with the law.

 

[El_Machinae]

Clinton was impeached for perjury, which is a clear criminal offense. Now, whether he was actually guilty of the charge is a different question, but the Clinton Impeachment pretended to use actual criminal law.

 

[Estebonrober]

Clinton was impeached for perjury, which is a clear criminal offense. Now, whether he was actually guilty of the charge is a different question, but the Clinton Impeachment pretended to use actual criminal law.

that perjury was minor was the point I was making, the impeachment has more to do with political will then it did with legal concerns.

 

[amadeus]

You can say what you want about professional ethics and maybe disbarment or censure for his actions, but clearly impeaching him was an overt political action and had little to do with the law.

Bill Clinton did have his license suspended in Arkansas and did face disbarment, but resigned his practice before any action was taken.

 

[Estebonrober]

Bill Clinton did have his license suspended in Arkansas and did face disbarment, but resigned his practice before any action was taken.

Probably an appropriate response, looking back from this hillside impeachment seems like dramatic overkill. . . since literally trying to get your own VP killed is not worthy of impeachment.

 

[onejayhawk]

Two specifics, treason and bribery, and then an open door to whatever the House wants.

That and common law. Opening the door as far as it has been thrown is, literally in this case, unprecedented

Yeah, I recognize that the phrase 'misdemeanours' here is one that has Common Law behind it. But, it's not a complete definition.

It's not. That's why you read opinions.

Biden gets caught jaywalking. Impeach!

That's pretty much what happened recently.

Biden could be impeached for actions while he was Vice President.

Maybe I’m young but my interpretation of it has always been extra-legal since my introduction to it was Clinton. You can say what you want about professional ethics and maybe disbarment or censure for his actions, but clearly impeaching him was an overt political action and had little to do with the law.

Not correct. The Clinton impeachment was a felony criminal case--Lying Under Oath and Obstruction of Justice.

Clinton was impeached for perjury, which is a clear criminal offense. Now, whether he was actually guilty of the charge is a different question, but the Clinton Impeachment pretended to use actual criminal law.

There was no pretense; it was a genuine criminal matter, with specific laws cited. The two counts were pruned down from eleven counts forwarded by the Independent Counsel. There is little doubt that he actually committed the crime, since he admitted to all the elements at various times. However, he was successful in characterizing it as a simple affair, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Bill Clinton did have his license suspended in Arkansas and did face disbarment, but resigned his practice before any action was taken.

Nixon was not allowed to do that. He tried to resign, but was formerly disbarred regardless.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Clinton was impeached for perjury

From which Rudy learned to tell Trump to keep his lies about stolen elections and fraud out of court.

So a lesson was learned there. If you're going to lie, do so at rallies, in front of cameras, on twitter, in fake hearings. But not when under oath.

 

[Zkribbler]

There is little doubt that he actually committed the crime...

Clinton committed no crime.

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding. In a case involving the alleged sexual harassment of one woman, whether Clinton had consensual relation with a different woman is an immaterial matter. Moreover, "having sex" was never defined in the proceeding. Clinton defended himself arguing that, in his mind, "having sex" meant genital-to-genital intercourse, which never happened with Monica. Thus, thus the trial court judge found Clinton's response was true...albeit evasive. Thus, she sanctioned Clinton for giving an evasive answer. For decades, Republicans have been twisting this sanctioning for giving an evasive answer into a false claim of a finding of perjury.
[Has anyone else noticed we have wandered ?]

 

[El_Machinae]

There is little doubt that he actually committed the crime, since he admitted to all the elements at various times.

That's how I feel about Stoynoff

 

[onejayhawk]

Probably an appropriate response, looking back from this hillside impeachment seems like dramatic overkill. . . since literally trying to get your own VP killed is not worthy of impeachment.

That you

Clinton committed no crime. Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

That is why he is guilty of a crime. He did lie about material facts.

In a case involving the alleged sexual harassment of one woman, whether Clinton had consensual relation with a different woman is an immaterial matter. Moreover, "having sex" was never defined in the proceeding. Clinton defended himself arguing that, in his mind, "having sex" meant genital-to-genital intercourse, which never happened with Monica. Thus, thus the trial court judge found Clinton's response was true...albeit evasive. Thus, she sanctioned Clinton for giving an evasive answer. For decades, Republicans have been twisting this sanctioning for giving an evasive answer into a false claim of a finding of perjury.
[Has anyone else noticed we have wandered?]

It's easy to get confused, because there are so many occurrences. The Starr report detail four counts of lying under oath and five more counts of lying to investigators, as well as obstruction of justice and witness tampering. He lied about material facts in the Paula Jones case. He also lied about the relationship with Monica Lewinsky and attempted to subourn her to perjury. Her trump card was the semen on the blue dress.

It's a bit of irony that when a lawyer proves a witness is lying it is called impeaching the witness.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

All seamen dress in blue.

 

[Estebonrober]

That you
That is why he is guilty of a crime. He did lie about material facts.

It's easy to get confused, because there are so many occurrences. The Starr report detail four counts of lying under oath and five more counts of lying to investigators, as well as obstruction of justice and witness tampering. He lied about material facts in the Paula Jones case. He also lied about the relationship with Monica Lewinsky and attempted to subourn her to perjury. Her trump card was the semen on the blue dress.

It's a bit of irony that when a lawyer proves a witness is lying it is called impeaching the witness.

this kind of disconnect from your own biases used to be sort of ridiculous and funny. Upon further review of the last four years its forking terrifying. There is no reason to suspect any GOP supporter would ever stand up for the other for any reason. This dissonance of one’s own faults when critiquing others is crazy.

 

[Gorbles]

Reading onejayhawk's posts throughout this page, you could replace most instances of "him" or "Clinton" with "Trump" and it would read just as well. The problem here obviously is the complete double-standard of going all-in on justifying Clinton's whilst undermining Trump's (impeachments, to be clear).

 

[Estebonrober]

Reading onejayhawk's posts throughout this page, you could replace most instances of "him" or "Clinton" with "Trump" and it would read just as well. The problem here obviously is the complete double-standard of going all-in on justifying Clinton's whilst undermining Trump's (impeachments, to be clear).

Fwiw at the time I supported impeaching Clinton for lying because I thought lying to investigators should have dire consequences. I’ve learned a lot since then about the machinations of human society in general m, but no matter how much I learn the GOP’s hypocrisy still shocks me on occasion.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The biggest difference between Clinton's and Trump's impeachments is that Clinton's was for lying about sex and Trump's was for trying to overturn an election. Now both are impeachable under the constitution as we have seen. But one is several orders of magnitude more serious than the other as far as the nation is concerned.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Not correct. The Clinton impeachment was a felony criminal case--Lying Under Oath and Obstruction of Justice.

Testifying under oath is optional ..... when you are a Republican
Just like selectively investigating decades old real estate deals
or being supeoned for documents (tax returns)

The Party of Law and Order /s

 

[Lexicus]

I have another Constitutional question.
Would it be considered a bill of attainder if Congress were to pass a law specifying that Senator Kyrsten Sinema is a trick-ass mark, and Senator Joe Manchin is a mark-ass trick?

 

[Gori the Grey]

To even try to answer, I had to look those up on Urban Dictionary

Spoiler :

"Attainder" they didn't have. "Bill," I learn, means $100