Impeachment Inquiry What do y'all think?

[DKW 86 7,419]

Look idiot. He was stripped of his law license, fined $90k, and found guilty of perjury by a damn judge. You know this. You are just being your normal know nothing self when you lose a argument. 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

8 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Look idiot. He was stripped of his law license, fined$00k, and found guilty of perjury by a damn judge. You know this. You are just being your normal know nothing self when you lose a argument. 

You’re ignorant as hell and back to your insulting self. He violated the ethical code and agreed to a five year suspension of his license and a fine. The standard for misrepresentation is higher for an attorney. Perjury is a crime which has elements that must be proven, is more difficult to get a conviction for and was never established in a court of law. He would have contested perjury if charged. He wasn’t. What you stated was flat out wrong. As typical, your obsessed with the Clintons, and clueless about what’s happening in front of you.

[DKW 86 7,419]

 

Quote

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bill-clinton-fined-and-disbarred-over-the-monica-lewinsky-scandal/

Statement: Bill Clinton was disbarred from practicing law in Arkansas and was also disbarred from practicing law in front of the Supreme Court over the Lewinsky incident.

Fact: While Clinton can no longer practice law in front of the highest court, it’s not accurate to say that he was disbarred from either the Supreme Court or from practicing law in Arkansas. Clinton’s license was suspended in Arkansas, but he was not disbarred, and while Clinton did face the possibility of being barred from arguing in front the U.S. Supreme Court, he resigned before the ruling was handed down. 

On his last day in office in 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license in order to head off any criminal charges for lying under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton has been eligible to seek reinstatement of his license since 2006, but as of 2013 he had not applied to do so.

Shortly after Clinton’s license was suspended in Arkansas, the U.S. Supreme Court suspended Clinton from presenting cases in front of the highest court (which he had never done) and gave him 40 days to contest his disbarment (which Clinton did not do). Instead, he resigned from the Supreme Court bar:

Former President Clinton, facing the possibility of being barred from practicing law before the U.S. Supreme Court because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, has resigned instead, his lawyer said.

“Former President Clinton hereby respectfully requests to resign from the bar of this court,” his lawyer, David Kendall, said in a two-page letter to the high court’s clerk. Kendall did not elaborate on why Clinton decided to resign.

Clinton’s resignation from the Supreme Court bar will have little practical impact. Clinton has not practiced before the Supreme Court and was not expected to argue any cases in the future.

Statement: He also paid a $25,000 fine over the Lewinsky incident.

Fact: In addition to agreeing to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, Clinton accepted a $25,000 fine:

Mr. Clinton paid the fine with a personal check on March 21, said Marie-Bernarde Miller, the lawyer who handled a disbarment lawsuit brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

“The case is completed,” Ms. Miller said.

Statement: Clinton was fined $90,000 for giving false testimony in the Paula Jones case.

Fact: In April 1999, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for giving false testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial and fined him over $90,000:

The federal judge who found President Clinton in contempt of court levied a penalty of $90,686 against him, making him the first chief executive ever assessed such a payment.

Repeating her condemnation of Clinton for lying under oath in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright said that she was imposing the sanction to cover some of Jones’ legal expenses and “to deter others who might consider emulating the president’s misconduct.”

Robert S. Bennett, Clinton’s private attorney, said that he would not challenge the ruling. “We accept the judgment of the court and will comply with it.”

Statement: He also paid an $850,000 settlement over the Lewinsky incident.

Fact: Bill Clinton did write a large settlement check, but that money went to Paula Jones and not Monica Lewinsky,

In 1994, Paula Jones filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill Clinton. Thar case dragged on for four years (while Clinton was serving as President) before it was finally settled in November 1998 with a check for $850,000 (Lost the case in a courtroom for lying under oath.)

Clinton mailed the settlement cheque to Mrs. Jones, even as he braced for the heaviest fallout yet from her harassment suit — an impeachment trial in the Senate.

To finance the settlement, the president drew about $375,000 from his and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal funds and got the rest of the money, about $475,000, from an insurance policy, a White House official told The Associated Press.

“This ends it. The check is being Fed-Exed” to Bill McMillan, one of Mrs. Jones’ lawyers, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

 

Clinton was FOUND GUILTY in a real live courtroom of "Lying Under Oath" or Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. 

He paid just over $965K in accessed fines.  For proven perjury, lying under oath, and obstruction IN A COURTROOM. 

So far, all Schiff has shown is that after almost three full years of investigations, DJT has some people that say that they FEEL or HEARD OTHERS SAY THEY FELT that he was doing or about to do something impeachable but none of them have actually proved he actually did it. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

All these news stories say that Clinton did commit perjury.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-clinton-impeached

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/elessons/the-impeachment-of-bill-clinton/

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/clinton-impeachment/573940/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010119/aponline143555_000.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/gperjury092498.htm

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/bill-clinton-impeachment-case-stronger-than-trump/

and then there is this: 

Quote

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Clinton-not-convicted-of-perjury-since-he-later-admitted-he-did-have-sexual-relations-with-Monica-Lewinsky

Perjury requires both a false statement AND materiality. If, for example, you say “I like my mother’s haircut” when in fact you really hate it, that’s not enough to convict you of perjury. The statement has to be material and relevant in some proceeding. If you are called as a witness in a murder trial and you state that your mother never committed a crime, knowing that she did, that would not be perjury because, again, your mother’s criminal record is not relevant or material to the murder trial.

President Clinton was sued by Paula Jones and in that case he stated under oath that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Paula Jones’ lawyers really wanted to introduce evidence of Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky but the trial judge ruled that they couldn’t because the matter was irrelevant and immaterial to Jones’ trial.  As a result, his statement about Lewinsky was not material or relevant and therefore not perjury.

 

 

So even a trial lawyer says that Clinton DID COMMIT PERJURY. But because the judge for some unknown reason didnt allow the Lewinsky EVIDENCE in to prove a long line of bad acts by Clinton, the charge went from Perjury to Lying under Oath, which to all but an exacting lawyer would says amount to perjury. So, it was not what Clinton did that saved him from the charge of perjury, he committed it. Because the Lewinsky mess was not used in the trial, it fell back to just lying under oath. He did in fact commit perjury,The judge witholding evidence in the trial is the only thing that kept Clinton from being found guilty of PERJURY. He did in fact commit it, even the trial lawyers thought so. 

[alexava 6,973]

10 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

You're quite gullible Alex. Non partisan? Might want to check that. The Ambassador that gave a million dollars stated emphatically that Trump told him he wanted no quid pro quo, but rather they stick to their commitment to investigate corruption.  I have no doubt they saw a shitshow. In fact, they may be proven complicit in time with the Shiff fiasco. 

Trump will or will not be removed based on facts, not some made up bull Sh$# from a butthurt bunch of juveniles. 

No spin necessary. I'm no desperate juvenile. 

Lol. I’m gullible? You got this one line from 8 hours of testimony? 

Thats also a very interesting way to answer a question! No quid pro quo! Next time you get pulled over on your way home from the golf course, after drinking a few cold ones, when the officer asks for your license and proof of insurance, tell him you haven’t drank a drop. See how that works out for you. 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

4 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

All these news stories say that Clinton did commit perjury.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-clinton-impeached

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/elessons/the-impeachment-of-bill-clinton/

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/clinton-impeachment/573940/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010119/aponline143555_000.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/gperjury092498.htm

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/bill-clinton-impeachment-case-stronger-than-trump/

and then there is this: 

 

So even a trial lawyer says that Clinton DID COMMIT PERJURY. But because the judge for some unknown reason didnt allow the Lewinsky EVIDENCE in to prove a long line of bad acts by Clinton, the charge went from Perjury to Lying under Oath, which to all but an exacting lawyer would says amount to perjury. So, it was not what Clinton did that saved him from the charge of perjury, he committed it. Because the Lewinsky mess was not used in the trial, it fell back to just lying under oath. He did in fact commit perjury,The judge witholding evidence in the trial is the only thing that kept Clinton from being found guilty of PERJURY. He did in fact commit it, even the trial lawyers thought so. 

Read what you post. The lawyer says something different than you say. You can find other lawyers who agree with you, but that will only prove lawyers often disagree.

[DKW 86 7,419]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Read what you post. The lawyer says something different than you say. You can find other lawyers who agree with you, but that will only prove lawyers often disagree.

And we agree to disagree....But everyone of those articles, and many more, called it perjury as well.

 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

30 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

And we agree to disagree....But everyone of those articles, and many more, called it perjury as well.

 

Ken Starr claimed it was perjury and referred it to the House. All deception isn’t perjury and details matter. If you want to say Clinton misled the American people and Jones’ lawyers about his relationship with Lewinsky, no one will disagree with you. But her lawyers weren’t that skilled at questioning and the consensual Lewinsky affair was arguably not material to what Jones was alleging. 

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

46 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Ken Starr claimed it was perjury and referred it to the House. All deception isn’t perjury and details matter. If you want to say Clinton misled the American people and Jones’ lawyers about his relationship with Lewinsky, no one will disagree with you. But her lawyers weren’t that skilled at questioning and the consensual Lewinsky affair was arguably not material to what Jones was alleging. 

What, that Clinton had a LLLOOONNNGGG pattern of affairs with underage subordinate workers? Whatever makes you sleep at night...

 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

36 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

What, that Clinton had a LLLOOONNNGGG pattern of affairs with underage subordinate workers? Whatever makes you sleep at night...

 

I’m assuming drugs help you sleep. I know of no “underage subordinate workers” — got a link?

Jones alleged unwanted advances. Lewinsky testified to a consensual relationship she pursued. A pattern of consensual relationships is arguably not material evidence in establishing a claim of unwanted advances. Lawyers can argue that issue in a courtroom if someone faces a criminal charge of perjury.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Okay, long history of unwanted sexual advances and a history of sexual advances with much younger women. That underage thing was me thinking about Clinton and Epstein...and their long relationship.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

Just now, DKW 86 said:

Okay, long history of unwanted sexual advances and a history of sexual advances with much younger women. That underage thing was me thinking about Clinton and Epstein...and their long relationship.

Look, Clinton violated his ethical code as an attorney and lost his license. I’m not arguing it was unfair. I’m just clarifying all deception isn’t illegal and certainly isn’t perjury.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

On 11/25/2019 at 6:26 PM, TexasTiger said:

Criminal convictions are won with this much evidence.

Not when the Prosecutors witness when directly asked say there was no crime. 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

1 hour ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Not when the Prosecutors witness when directly asked say there was no crime. 

Fact witnesses provide facts. The lawyer then lays out the case. One witness rarely has all the facts in a complex case and they rarely know the law. Even if they do, it’s not their role.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

46 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Fact witnesses provide facts. The lawyer then lays out the case. One witness rarely has all the facts in a complex case and they rarely know the law. Even if they do, it’s not their role.

You just can't get over the fact that the witnesses brought in by the Democrats said there was no bribery, or any other crime. By the way Morrison is a lawyer who was on the call and knows what the law states.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

1 hour ago, AuburnNTexas said:

You just can't get over the fact that the witnesses brought in by the Democrats said there was no bribery, or any other crime. By the way Morrison is a lawyer who was on the call and knows what the law states.

“Your Honor, I move to dismiss. This one witness can’t attest to a crime under oath.”

Not how it works, Perry Mason. Witnesses tell the facts they know. The prosecutor builds the case with the cumulative info from the available witnesses. In an actual court, a defense attorney with facts on their side presents those facts. In the absence of those facts, they attempt to cast doubt on the facts presented. 

If the prosecutor brings forth witnesses with actual factual evidence that helps the defense that’s one thing, but what you saw from Nunes and Co. was an effort to get sound bites to dupe folks like you. They were playing to the Fox News audience  and other sympathetic viewers. That’s not how charges are proven or disproven.

 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

9 hours ago, alexava said:

Lol. I’m gullible? You got this one line from 8 hours of testimony? 

Thats also a very interesting way to answer a question! No quid pro quo! Next time you get pulled over on your way home from the golf course, after drinking a few cold ones, when the officer asks for your license and proof of insurance, tell him you haven’t drank a drop. See how that works out for you. 

Well its an opinion. Mine.  I can't honestly tell you how many hours of impeachment hearings i saw, but I came away with nothing impeachable. Polling, which I am no fan of, show the majority of Americans agree.

If you don't like Sondland's answer, take it up with him. Trust me, I had had no input. 

No idea what the relevance of my golf game or drinking in said game have to do with impeachment. Do tell. LOL.

Happy Thanksgiving! 

 

 

[alexava 6,973]

29 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Well its an opinion. Mine.  I can't honestly tell you how many hours of impeachment hearings i saw, but I came away with nothing impeachable. Polling, which I am no fan of, show the majority of Americans agree.

If you don't like Sondland's answer, take it up with him. Trust me, I had had no input. 

No idea what the relevance of my golf game or drinking in said game have to do with impeachment. Do tell. LOL.

Happy Thanksgiving! 

 

 

Happy Thanksgiving to you too.. 

the relevance is when you are asked a question and answer by defending yourself on something that wasn’t part of the question..it’s self implication..You are using his answer (which is the only few seconds in eight hours of testimony that could be used as defense. It is actually the opposite) 

I have said repeatedly, maybe not here but elsewhere, I don’t know what is “impeachable “. but I know what guilty is. He is 100% guilty of what he’s being accused of. I can’t imagine how people can defend it. You could say” yeah he did it but I don’t care” but to  dismiss that this is not being proven is borderline insane.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Quite bizarre response. Not surprising. Have a drink or another. LOL. Enjoy tomorrow!

[bigbird 60,509]

11 hours ago, alexava said:

I have said repeatedly, maybe not here but elsewhere, I don’t know what is “impeachable “. but I know what guilty is. He is 100% guilty of what he’s being accused of. I can’t imagine how people can defend it. You could say” yeah he did it but I don’t care” but to  dismiss that this is not being proven is borderline insane.

This is close to where I'm at.

Did he initiate and provide pressure to Ukraine for a favor? Sure. Is that unprecedented? Not in the least. Is it impeachable? Maybe. Will he be convicted and removed? No chance in Hell. Is it politically driven? 100%. Have the Dems wasted 3 years of political capital and turned off much of the electorate? Sure have. Will ICHY faceplam it dislike this? 100%.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

2 hours ago, bigbird said:

This is close to where I'm at.

Did he initiate and provide pressure to Ukraine for a favor? Sure. Is that unprecedented? Not in the least. Is it impeachable? Maybe. Will he be convicted and removed? No chance in Hell. Is it politically driven? 100%. Have the Dems wasted 3 years of political capital and turned off much of the electorate? Sure have. Will ICHY faceplam it dislike this? 100%.

If it’s not unprecedented to withhold congressionally approved military  aid for a purely personal political favor that influences an upcoming election, Even when there’s a clear bi-partisan consensus that it’s in the country’s best interest, please link to that.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

31 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

If it’s not unprecedented to withhold congressionally approved military  aid for a purely personal political favor that influences an upcoming election, Even when there’s a clear bi-partisan consensus that it’s in the country’s best interest, please link to that.

Why do you insist on this lie? You can break from that nonsense. No one would blame you.

Corruption should be investigated and POTUS has an obligation to insure a foreign country receiving our assistance is doing their part. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Why spin it? 

[DKW 86 7,419]

23 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Look, Clinton violated his ethical code as an attorney and lost his license. I’m not arguing it was unfair. I’m just clarifying all deception isn’t illegal and certainly isn’t perjury.

You know, the good people of this world dont want to live in that world. You know where deception is okay as long as it meets some technical parlance that is so extraneous that no one really cares anymore. If you want to n ow how we got Trump as President, I think you just found the methodology.  You know where business fraud isnt fraud. Where filing bankruptcies arent really bad, they are good business decisions (still cant believe NOLA wrote that on a public forum). Where publicly cheating on your spouse is okay and dumping them isnt a character flaw if the new babe is 10 years younger. Basically the foundation for the Trump Presidency was laid during the Clinton WH. 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

39 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Why do you insist on this lie? You can break from that nonsense. No one would blame you.

Corruption should be investigated and POTUS has an obligation to insure a foreign country receiving our assistance is doing their part. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Why spin it? 

You’re either lying, crazy or stupid. You investigate with the DOJ, not your personal attorney tying a litany of favors to merely announcing an investigation you don’t really care happens or not. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why spin it? I know, the reality is too obvious.

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

If it’s not unprecedented to withhold congressionally approved military  aid for a purely personal political favor that influences an upcoming election, Even when there’s a clear bi-partisan consensus that it’s in the country’s best interest, please link to that.

Are you saying that there is actual 100% bonafide proof of this or are we back to relying on hear say again? There is a document saying this, sigfned or with forensics saying Trump etal knew of it? There is a document ordering et al to work toward that end? Did this actually happen? Was money withheld until AFTER dirt was found for the President? Or are we just discussing more hearsay and divined intuitive feelings?