[RD] Impeach Clinton

[BvBPL]

Almost twenty years ago, Bill Clinton was impeached. His impeachment was largely political, but it was premised on the fallout from the Paula Jones investigations by Ken Starr. Those investigations revealed that Clinton was something of a philanderer, and that he used to benefits of his offices to engage in liaisons with women. Despite these revelations, Democrats in the Senate continued to support him.

As we condemn Roy Moore, Louis CK, Harvey Weinstein, George Takei, and Kevin Spacey for their past sexual misdeeds, we should not fail to reexamine the pass that was given to Clinton. As the GOP is learning, a party cannot mortgage its morals in favor temporary authority.

 

[Berzerker]

Like Ross Perot said, if Hillary cant trust him, neither can we... I have mixed feelings about impeaching Bill, he lied under oath to deny his victim justice, but the whole episode was the result of a fishing expedition into Whitewater - albeit Paula Jones still deserved justice regardless of how they got there. And from what I understand that didn't turn out to be much, kinda like how this 'colluding with Russia' thing will turn out.

 

[Zkribbler]

... he lied under oath to deny his victim justice,

Are you still repeating this same ol' garbage? So, once again...

The trial court specifically found that Clinton did NOT lie. She did hold, though, that him using his own definition to exclude oral sex from the definition of sex made his answer evasive, and she sanctioned him for his evasive answer. She then admonish plaintiff's counsel for asking vague questions.

Paula Jones was not "denied justice." Every single cause of action was barred by the statue of limitation, except her civil rights claim for alleged loss of her property rights to her government employment,,,except she never lost her job, never had he pay cut, and was never demoted or transferred. Thus, because she had no damages, her frivolous suit was dismissed.

Then she filed a frivolous appeal. For whatever reason, Clinton then paid her $750,000 to settle. Getting paid that much for bringing a meritless action is not being denied justice.

 

[onejayhawk]

Are you still repeating this same ol' garbage? So, once again...

The trial court specifically found that Clinton did NOT lie. She did hold, though, that him using his own definition to exclude oral sex from the definition of sex made his answer evasive, and she sanctioned him for his evasive answer. She then admonish plaintiff's counsel for asking vague questions.

Paula Jones was not "denied justice." Every single cause of action was barred by the statue of limitation, except her civil rights claim for alleged loss of her property rights to her government employment,,,except she never lost her job, never had he pay cut, and was never demoted or transferred. Thus, because she had no damages, her frivolous suit was dismissed.

Then she filed a frivolous appeal. For whatever reason, Clinton then paid her $750,000 to settle. Getting paid that much for bringing a meritless action is not being denied justice.

A skunk by any other name would smell as sweet. By your logic GWBush did not lie about WMD in Iraq.

J

 

[Berzerker]

The trial court specifically found that Clinton did NOT lie. She did hold, though, that him using his own definition to exclude oral sex from the definition of sex made his answer evasive, and she sanctioned him for his evasive answer.

Trump doesn't lie, he uses his own definitions... How is "I did not have sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky not a lie? He did...

Paula Jones was not "denied justice."

She wasn't denied because his lie didn't work, but he did lie to deny her justice

she never lost her job, never had he pay cut, and was never demoted or transferred. Thus, because she had no damages, her frivolous suit was dismissed.

That means Harvey Weinstein didn't sexually harass women who weren't fired

Clinton then paid her $750,000 to settle. Getting paid that much for bringing a meritless action is not being denied justice.

Of course the suit had merit, she doesn't know if her refusal will hurt her career, that makes the boss' request for sex 'coercive'.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

It is impossible to seriously discuss these matters on a "family-friendly" forum. Yet this "family-friendly" censorship makes it very clear how hypocrite are those condemnations.

Seems as if certain people are already living like these:

Spoiler :

At one point an attempt is called harassment, at another point the same kind of attempt results in relations or even family. Yet there's a third point when there's no attempt at all, but still a harassment. Then there's a grownup who has a sex mate and more sexual experience than many de jure adults, yet he's considered an innocent kid. Then there's an amazingly looking teacher being jailed for having sex with such so-called "kids", who I bet not only gave their consent but were jubilant and, thanks to that teacher, should now have a much more healthy and satisfying adult life and also healthy mature mind compared to the pious crowd who condemn them and the teacher.

Now, what is so wrong with having affairs in Clinton's case? If we put away this puritan medieval mentality and fake accusations. It happens. It is natural for a human being. People, families are getting destroyed from the inside (keeping this image as if everything okay and as it should be) when their sexual life goes bad or absent. Why it is a so big deal that someone got an affair?

It is much worse when to defocus you from their sexual affairs or other misdeeds, to manipulate ratings, your rulers bomb other countries, destroying nations, or launch global propaganda campaigns, corroding your legal system and media standards from the inside.

 

[Kyriakos]

The worst effect of all this was the false victim-mentality associated with blaming a family which VERY CLEARLY has a lot of power and should be checked.
I mean... I don't know if having an affair was logical grounds for actual impeachment (i suppose not; it seems a bit too bizarre a reason, and technically the impeachable offense was his lying, which again is debatable if serious for this legal action), but this doesn't change the fact that the charade of impeachment has since been used so that the Clintons can comically play the victim.
People in power - let alone corrupt - should not be allowed to play the victim. They are certainly in the upper privileged (and not the meme) class.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Three of our last five presidents (I'm counting the current one among this) have been predators or molested people or were/are rapists, so I like the idea, but we should really be burning them all down.

 

[Evie]

The problem, fundamentally, is that the Clinton impeachment went after him on the wrong angle. A lie that legally speaking was of debatable "lie" nature, and might or might not have been actual violation of the law, was not cause for impeachment. Impeaching him for that would have served no useful purpose in regard to highlighting the actual problematic element of the relationship, namely the fact that he levied his power over Lewinsky into a relationship with her. The impeachment was simply unrelated to the problem. And it's the Republicans who bear the blame of making this a debate about perjury and impeachment, rather than a debate about abuse and harassment.

Which does not excuse the relationship, consensual or not. It's tinged very strongly with abuse (though not close to the same level as the allegations against Weinstein, Moore and several others), and should have warranted a stronger reaction.

In hindsight, had the debate been where it should have been (the abusive nature of the relationship), the Democrats should have suggested his resignation in a very public way, and withdrawn support from him (within reason ; ie not to the point of shutting down the country) had he refused to do so. Ideally, he would have stepped down and passed the baton to Gore. That would have been the right thing to do.

 

[inthesomeday]

I think Bill Clinton should have been convicted and removed from office, not only for lying under oath but also for abuse of power and sexual assault. Actually, he should have also been removed from office for expanding the prison industry, for supporting DoMA, and a number of other reprehensible and violent actions in office.

This would have been clearly the morally correct course of action. However, it was not legal, because the laws for impeachment and removal from office don't follow morality, but politics. Politically Bill Clinton and his family were too powerful, and too wealthy, to be legally prosecuted, because law favors the political and financial elites in charge of writing it.

I should think that this example would be a good bit of evidence of this fact to help confused conservatives to accept it.

 

[Evie]

There's more to it than politics and the Clinton's powoer

There's, for a start, the fact that whether his lie (in the vernacular sense) actually represented a lie (eg, perjury) in the *legal* sense. The law has specific definition which are not always the commonplace ones. This was open to debate, not a clearcut case. There's also the question of whether perjury, in itself, should have been a sufficient offense to impeach a president. Both were open cases at the time. In short, this comes down to the case for impeaching him, as it was made at the time, being dodgy as heck. The Democrats had at least as many good reasons to vote against it as the Republicans had to vote for it (and political partisanship was thick on both sides).

All the graver accusations you levy against him - abuse of power, sexual assaults - weren't levied against him. His impeachment, like I said above, was never about whether his "relationship" with Lewinsky was legal or ethical. It was purely about the question of whether or not the alleged perjury happened and whether or not it constituted sufficient cause for impeachment. Trying to rewrite history to make it otherwise is a big mistake.

 

[inthesomeday]

Yeah, I know. I don't care about the details of the case, or the law, or the judicial process, because my point is that it's all very flawed and skewed to be ineffective against the powerful, and that this very situation is evidence of that fact. I'm not rewriting history; I'm saying that happening as it happened is exactly to be expected.

We'll see it reflected today. Not one of these powerful entertainment millionaires will go to prison, and the only consequence they'll suffer is losing work they don't need for being millionaires already. Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump for that matter, as well as apparently GHWB, are all going to be above these laws for poor people as well, and won't suffer any consequences at all for their actions except a little bit of public controversy that fades away after a few years. I mean, Bill Clinton has already had his image thoroughly rehabilitated by the Dems by now, and the many many sexual assault allegations against Trump are being effectively swept under the rug by his supporters. GHWB's allegations are getting a little bit of traction but they're not going to go anywhere either.

The discussion of specific legal arguments is a little bit pointless because morally everybody can agree that Clinton was guilty and should have been removed from office. When legality is inconsistent with basic, agreeable ethics, legality is in the wrong. So shouting back and forth about whether his obstruction of the truth by pretending he didn't consider oral sex sex is farcical and absurd, and in fact distracts from the much more important discussion, which is what we can do to hold politicians and millionaires responsible who won't be so held by the "justice" system.

 

[timtofly]

It is impossible to seriously discuss these matters on a "family-friendly" forum. Yet this "family-friendly" censorship makes it very clear how hypocrite are those condemnations.

At one point an attempt is called harassment, at another point the same kind of attempt results in relations or even family. Yet there's a third point when there's no attempt at all, but still a harassment. Then there's a grownup who has a sex mate and more sexual experience than many de jure adults, yet he's considered an innocent kid. Then there's an amazingly looking teacher being jailed for having sex with such so-called "kids", who I bet not only gave their consent but were jubilant and, thanks to that teacher, should now have a much more healthy and satisfying adult life and also healthy mature mind compared to the pious crowd who condemn them and the teacher.

Now, what is so wrong with having affairs in Clinton's case? If we put away this puritan medieval mentality and fake accusations. It happens. It is natural for a human being. People, families are getting destroyed from the inside (keeping this image as if everything okay and as it should be) when their sexual life goes bad or absent. Why it is a so big deal that someone got an affair?

It is much worse when to defocus you from their sexual affairs or other misdeeds, to manipulate ratings, your rulers bomb other countries, destroying nations, or launch global propaganda campaigns, corroding your legal system and media standards from the inside.

I agree in part that no one is eligible to keep any other person hostage to any control system. Every human is flawed.

Seeing as how sex and power are naturally woven together as the same entity, you cannot allow one or the other to go unchecked. But humans have agreed to sacrifice one for the other, and it is a loose loose outcome.

We complain we do not have rights, when the whole issue is we do not need them as long as we keep sex and power out of our lives altogether. I am not espousing puritanical control of humanity. I am pointing out humanity cannot have rights as long as we feel the need to be free in our sex, and the power it gives us.

 

[BvBPL]

All the graver accusations you levy against him - abuse of power, sexual assaults - weren't levied against him.

Should they have been? Why or why not?

Legality and criminality are not the only means by which we judge conduct. While an impeachment has the veneer of a trial, it is a political action at its core.

Consider that if we say we could not have impeach Clinton because his sexual behavior was disreputable but not criminal then aren’t we holding comedians and legislators to a higher standard than the president?

 

[plarq]

I agree in part that no one is eligible to keep any other person hostage to any control system. Every human is flawed.

Seeing as how sex and power are naturally woven together as the same entity, you cannot allow one or the other to go unchecked. But humans have agreed to sacrifice one for the other, and it is a loose loose outcome.

We complain we do not have rights, when the whole issue is we do not need them as long as we keep sex and power out of our lives altogether. I am not espousing puritanical control of humanity. I am pointing out humanity cannot have rights as long as we feel the need to be free in our sex, and the power it gives us.

That is relevant to the political system. A Monica Lewinsky in Ottoman Empire could become Kosem Sultana, for example.
Edit: or Theodora in Byzantine Empire, or Evita Peron in Argentina...

 

[Evie]

I don't know whether the accusations should have been levied, because I don't know the specific content of the law at the time. But on instinct? I think it would have been a terrible case to try and make, given Lewinsky's insistence on it being consensual, even (long) after the fact. Making a criminal case (proof beyond reasonable doubt!) against Clinton that he actually abused his power to get what he wanted...I don't see it happening. It's not even a "He said, she said" scenario. It's a "They both said the same thing but we think she was fooled into it..."

Which leaves us back where we started - he should have resigned, or been made to resign. Because while what he did was probably not demonstrably criminal, it was demonstrably a massive problem (even if you can't prove he used his power and influence to get her to agree to sex, the fact that the possibility exists and is fairly high should be enough reason to say the relationship was highly innacceptable).

The discussion of specific legal arguments is a little bit pointless because morally everybody can agree that Clinton was guilty and should have been removed from office. When legality is inconsistent with basic, agreeable ethics, legality is in the wrong. So shouting back and forth about whether his obstruction of the truth by pretending he didn't consider oral sex sex is farcical and absurd, and in fact distracts from the much more important discussion, which is what we can do to hold politicians and millionaires responsible who won't be so held by the "justice" system.

Basic, agreeable ethics is not a thing, at least not when it comes to specifics. Even something as simple as "Don't kill" find lots of debate when it comes to specifics. Does it apply to animals? To plants? To enemy soldiers? To people making you feel threatened (stand your ground)? To people actually threatening you (self-defense)? There are lots of different interpretations of where the limits of "Don't kill" are.

The same thing for "Don'T lie". is it acceptable to lie to protect someone? To prepare a (positive) surprise for them? To spare their feelings?

While the basic principles are clear-cut, the specifics of those ethics principles are anything but, and that's why relying on basic principles

----------------

As for "We could all see Clinton is guilty"...the truth is, no, we couldn't. Because Lewinsky, as noted above, still insists the whole thing was consensual, and at some point, "Believe the victim" has to cut both ways - if someone tell you "Actually, I was consenting, not a victim", it's worth listening to them.

That doesn't make the relationship right, but it shifts the problem from "obviously guilty of abuse" to "did dodgy stuff that has the appearance of potential abuse". We don't know that abuse happened. But the relationship was dubious enough that it should never have happened, and that Clinton should have seen it as a big enough mistake to justify his resignation.

 

[BvBPL]

Which leaves us back where we started - he should have resigned, or been made to resign. Because while what he did was probably not demonstrably criminal, it was demonstrably a massive problem (even if you can't prove he used his power and influence to get her to agree to sex, the fact that the possibility exists and is fairly high should be enough reason to say the relationship was highly innacceptable).

There isn’t a way to force a president (or a senator or a representative) to resign. The ability to remove a president is through impeachment or incapacity. So to say he shouldn’t have continued to be president but the way to remove him was through something other than impeachment is a bit of a pipedream. If Clinton’s behavior was unacceptable to the point of demanding that he be removed from office then he should have been fully impeached. If Clinton’s behavior was not so unacceptable that he should have been removed then we have a lower standard for presidents than for other parties.

As for "We could all see Clinton is guilty"...the truth is, no, we couldn't. Because Lewinsky, as noted above, still insists the whole thing was consensual, and at some point, "Believe the victim" has to cut both ways - if someone tell you "Actually, I was consenting, not a victim", it's worth listening to them.

That doesn't make the relationship right, but it shifts the problem from "obviously guilty of abuse" to "did dodgy stuff that has the appearance of potential abuse". We don't know that abuse happened. But the relationship was dubious enough that it should never have happened, and that Clinton should have seen it as a big enough mistake to justify his resignation.

Lewinski clearly doesn’t feel that Clinton wronged her. She’s welcome to that opinion, but that’s not a full examination. Clinton’s behavior in using his offices to initiate liaisons is a wrong against the offices he held and the people he served in those offices. He might not have abused Lewinski, but he clearly abused his offices and the dignity of those offices.

 

[rah]

Just for grins. Let's suppose that he was single at the time, and ended up marrying the girl. Would you consider an abuse of his office or just natural attraction?

 

[BvBPL]

If it was merely a question of Clinton meeting a staffer and engaging in a relationship then that might be a different story. It wasn’t. Clinton’s behavior was a repeated pattern of using the authority of his offices and, perhaps more importantly, the personnel of those offices to engage in his vice. When officeholders engage state employees to facilitate their personal interests then that is an abuse of office.

 

[rah]

Thx. that's a bit clearer. Before getting married I dated a few women from work and none of it was ever considered harassment and abuse of my position. And I eventually married a women from work. So for someone like Clinton, what number would constitute a 'Repeated pattern" for you? This isn't a trick question that I'm going to throw the answer back in your face, I'm just curious on the definition because this type of behavior happens every day in the normal workplace (agreed not identical to what Clinton did).

To me, the fact that he was married, just makes him sleazy but the behavior in itself (if consensual, i know big IF) not a crime. I'm not going to go into the lying aspect since it doesn't matter to the point i'm discussing.