Republicans and democrats don't understand each other

[faberryman]

Which was?

Lying under oath about extramarital sex; obstruction of justice. He lost his license to practice law as a result. Back then, lying was frowned upon. Now it is an every day occurrence.

[amolitor]

Russ can't actually remember what Clinton was impeached for, Robert. The GOP was flinging an astonishing array of stuff at him, after all. Like all modern presidents, he was a kind of skeezy guy. You have to be rich to run, and you don't get rich by being a good guy.

As usual, it was not any actual crime, they impeached him for lying and covering other things which may or may not have been crimes.

[RSL]

Well, Andrew’s right about one thing: the Republicans threw too much crap into the impeachment move, and they paid a serious price as a result. Both Clintons are more sleazy than the average sleazy president, but in spite of Andrew’s pronouncement, lying under oath is a crime. Bottom line though, grounds for impeachment are described in the Constitution as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which covers an awful lot of ground; probably even blow jobs in the Oval Office.

[JoeKitchen]

Russ can't actually remember what Clinton was impeached for, Robert. The GOP was flinging an astonishing array of stuff at him, after all. Like all modern presidents, he was a kind of skeezy guy. You have to be rich to run, and you don't get rich by being a good guy.

As usual, it was not any actual crime, they impeached him for lying and covering other things which may or may not have been crimes.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Starr Report, which was a bi-partisan investigation, say specifically that Clinton was guilty on 11 different occasions? 

Pretty different from the Mueller report, which did not state Trump was guilty of anything. 

[James Clark]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Starr Report, which was a bi-partisan investigation, say specifically that Clinton was guilty on 11 different occasions? 

Pretty different from the Mueller report, which did not state Trump was guilty of anything.

Not exactly.   Like Mueller, Starr listed a variety of allegations with supporting evidence that were referred for the possibility of impeachment.   The majority of them were related to lying under oath.  Trump, of course, refused to testify under oath.  (I think we all know what would have happened).

Muller listed a number of incidents that could meet a three-part test for obstruction, and there's an interesting parallel in the 11th assertion that Starr made, specifically regarding what constitutes actionable obstruction (from Wikipedia):  (emphasis mine)

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.

That sounds awfully similar to Trump's actions, doesn't it?   And incidentally, if we're going with the argument that the Starr investigation was bipartisan, we can certainly dispense with the "12 angry democrats are on a witch hunt" nonsense. 

[RSL]

Not exactly.   Like Mueller, Starr listed a variety of allegations with supporting evidence that were referred for the possibility of impeachment.   The majority of them were related to lying under oath.  Trump, of course, refused to testify under oath.  (I think we all know what would have happened).

James, you don't tell us where you are -- it might be revealing to learn why -- but in the United States you're innocent until proven guilty. We don't convict on innuendo, which is what you're trying to do and what Mueller is trying to do.

Muller listed a number of incidents that could meet a three-part test for obstruction, and there's an interesting parallel in the 11th assertion that Starr made, specifically regarding what constitutes actionable obstruction (from Wikipedia):  (emphasis mine)

That sounds awfully similar to Trump's actions, doesn't it?

Please specify which actions you think are equivalent to Clinton's, and tell us why you think they're equivalent.

[faberryman]

Please specify which actions you think are equivalent to Clinton's, and tell us why you think they're equivalent.

Rabbit hole alert.

[JoeKitchen]

Not exactly.   Like Mueller, Starr listed a variety of allegations with supporting evidence that were referred for the possibility of impeachment.   The majority of them were related to lying under oath.  Trump, of course, refused to testify under oath.  (I think we all know what would have happened).

Muller listed a number of incidents that could meet a three-part test for obstruction, and there's an interesting parallel in the 11th assertion that Starr made, specifically regarding what constitutes actionable obstruction (from Wikipedia):  (emphasis mine)

That sounds awfully similar to Trump's actions, doesn't it?   And incidentally, if we're going with the argument that the Starr investigation was bipartisan, we can certainly dispense with the "12 angry democrats are on a witch hunt" nonsense. 

Thanks for the info, although I am not sure I agree with your last statement. 

Starr had both Dems and Reps on his team. 

Mueller only hired Dems, many of whom worked with the Clintons.  Now, one could argue that since Mueller was a Republican and had high integrity, that he kept his investigation fair and honest, up until this past Wednesday that is.  Wednesday's hearing showed that Mueller was merely a figure head of his own investigation and that it was actually overseen (regardless of why) by his subordinates, all of who were Dems.  This was further verified by the piece in the NY Times yesterday that showed Mueller took a back seat in the investigation. 

What I find most annoying is that for two years we were told that Mueller, a highly respected official with much integrity, would oversee this investigation, keeping it on track, to find out now that not only was this not true but that most likely a few reporters knew of this all along and did not report it. 

And the Press wonders why people are loosing their trust in them. 

[James Clark]

Thanks for the info, although I am not sure I agree with your last statement. 

Starr had both Dems and Reps on his team. 

Mueller only hired Dems, many of whom worked with the Clintons.

That's not correct. Politifact breaks it down.. About 2/3 of the investigators were registered democrats, but does that matter?  Are we to assume that it's impossible for them to be impartial?  If so, what basis do we have for believing *Barr* or any other Republican to be impartial? 

Now, one could argue that since Mueller was a Republican and had high integrity, that he kept his investigation fair and honest, up until this past Wednesday that is.  Wednesday's hearing showed that Mueller was merely a figure head of his own investigation and that it was actually overseen (regardless of why) by his subordinates, all of who were Dems.  This was further verified by the piece in the NY Times yesterday that showed Mueller took a back seat in the investigation.

All were NOT Dems - see above.   Hell, Trump, himself donated a bunch of money to Clinton in the past - more than all but one (I think) of the investigative team.   I'll go read the NYT article though - I missed that - thanks for the heads up!

What I find most annoying is that for two years we were told that Mueller, a highly respected official with much integrity, would oversee this investigation, keeping it on track, to find out now that not only was this not true but that most likely a few reporters knew of this all along and did not report it. 

And the Press wonders why people are loosing their trust in them.

You're assuming a lot here with regard to the press.  One theme that was consistent was a distinct relative lack of leaks and very very few accurate leaks.  I doubt there was a large group of reporters who actually knew this all along.

[James Clark]

James, you don't tell us where you are -- it might be revealing to learn why...

Huh?

-- but in the United States you're innocent until proven guilty. We don't convict on innuendo, which is what you're trying to do and what Mueller is trying to do.

Please specify which actions you think are equivalent to Clinton's, and tell us why you think they're equivalent.

I can't even tell if you're serious - it's all in bold for easy reading in my previous post.  Ken Starr, not me, asserted that Clinton obstructed justice and abused authority by, among other things:

1) Lying to the public
2) Refusing to testify
3) Invoking Executive Privilege

There's no innuendo needed.  All three of those actions are obviously and clearly in evidence in Trump's actions.  *I* don't happen to think that, generally, those are impeachable or criminal offenses, but if they were "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" In 1998, I'd imagine they still are today.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... *I* don't happen to think that, generally, those are impeachable or criminal offenses, but if they were "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" In 1998, I'd imagine they still are today.

James, I agree with your first sentence. As for the comparison, I'd simplify it: it was a witch hunt then, as it was recently.

[RSL]

Huh?

I can't even tell if you're serious - it's all in bold for easy reading in my previous post.  Ken Starr, not me, asserted that Clinton obstructed justice and abused authority by, among other things:

1) Lying to the public
2) Refusing to testify
3) Invoking Executive Privilege

There's no innuendo needed.  All three of those actions are obviously and clearly in evidence in Trump's actions.  *I* don't happen to think that, generally, those are impeachable or criminal offenses, but if they were "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" In 1998, I'd imagine they still are today.

So, you're trying to tell me these three "crimes" were the basis of Clinton's impeachment? You need to go back and review the evidence. Since you're not telling us your age, I'll have to assume everything you know about Clinton's impeachment comes from the "news" media. Of course, the news media certainly wouldn't tell a falsehood. Would they? I was there. I watched the vote on Clinton's impeachment. I also remember pretty precise descriptions of what went on in the Oval Office.

[Alan Klein]

I never thought Clinton should have been impeached as it related to hiding a sexual affair.  You expect people to lie about things like that.  Congress should not have been involved.  However, he stupidly testified and did lie to a grand jury and for that his license to practice law was revoked.  Trump on the other hand never lied under oath. Refusing to testify is not a crime.  The 5th Amendment allows us not to testify against ourselves. However, he did testify in the end and provided sworn statements regarding the collusion portion, the main thrust of the whole investigation for which there was no evidence of conspiracy. Invoking executive privilege is not a crime.  Presidents do it all the time. 

Regarding so called obstruction, they never had the evidence to prove that, so said Mueller, regardless of the OLR rules about not indicting a sitting president.  The president or anyone else doesn;t have to prove themselves innocent.  The government has to prove someone committed a crime.  They never had the proof.  In any case, what does anyone expect the president to do when he's accused of treason, of conspiring to work with a foreign power, for which the death penalty is allowed?  Of course Trump fought back.  They were phony charges.  He never did it so said Mueller.  What would you do of you were falsely accused of being a traitor?  Lie on the floor and allow people to stump you to death?  He had a right to defend himself.  He never did anything wrong in the first place.

Bottom line is the Democrats did not prove their claims.  Nor did Mueller. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The CNN one is brilliant!

[James Clark]

So, you're trying to tell me these three "crimes" were the basis of Clinton's impeachment?

No, I'm telling you that Ken Starr laid out 11 potential impeachable offenses.  Some version of lying under oath comprised the majority of these things, and the others dealt with the issues I outlined regarding what Starr called abuse of power and obstruction of justice.  Starr did NOT assert (at least in his report) that Clintons person, private behavior, however reprehensible though it might have been, was cause for impeachment.

You need to go back and review the evidence.

You're projecting.

Since you're not telling us your age, I'll have to assume everything you know about Clinton's impeachment comes from the "news" media.

You need to get off this kick.  It's insulting and condescending.  Nobody here questions your competence or knowledge on the basis of advanced age, and there's no logic in assuming that someone who disagrees with you is uneducated or ignorant.  In short, knock it off.

[James Clark]

I never thought Clinton should have been impeached as it related to hiding a sexual affair.  You expect people to lie about things like that.  Congress should not have been involved.  However, he stupidly testified and did lie to a grand jury and for that his license to practice law was revoked.  Trump on the other hand never lied under oath. Refusing to testify is not a crime.  The 5th Amendment allows us not to testify against ourselves. However, he did testify in the end and provided sworn statements regarding the collusion portion, the main thrust of the whole investigation for which there was no evidence of conspiracy. Invoking executive privilege is not a crime.  Presidents do it all the time.

I agree, generally.  That said, "Executive Privilege" isn't a "get out of jail free" card (no pun or point intended by use of that phrase), and as I mentioned earlier, Ken Starr asserted that claiming executive privilege was tantamount to obstructing justice or abuse of power, at least in some cases.  There's a real, and larger question here about whether the President is above the law.  Barr argues, essentially, that "if the President does it, it's not illegal."  I have a problem with that, though I acknowledge the inherent problems, political and practical, of bringing a prosecution against a sitting president.  I doubt there's an easy answer. 

Regarding so called obstruction, they never had the evidence to prove that, so said Mueller, regardless of the OLR rules about not indicting a sitting president.

But remember that Mueller's job wasn't to prosecute Donald Trump, nor was it to prosecute or prove obstruction.  Mueller's charge was to investigate Russian tampering, and in that process he laid out 10 instances where there was evidence of obstruction.  The guidelines say you cannot indict the President, so, literally, no one who COULD prove obstruction with the evodebce provided is allowed to do so.  So yes, no one "proved" Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, but that is *possibly* because no one is permitted to make that case.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...So yes, no one "proved" Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, but that is *possibly* because no one is permitted to make that case.

No (though I appreciate the "possibly" part).

No one prohibited Mueller from proving providing sufficient evidence of the obstruction and making the case. He just couldn't formally indict, but he could have said to the Congress "I proved it provided sufficient evidence, you impeach."

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

More of the PC nonsense:

Officials at Colorado State University are urging students to avoid terms it labels offensive, like “America” and “American.” According to Colorado State University’s “Inclusive Language Guide,” students are advised to avoid the words “America” and “American.” Why exactly has the university deemed these words offensive? The guide argues that these words erase “other cultures and depicts the United States as the dominant American country.” The guide, which was highlighted this week by Campus Reform, asks students to replace “America” and “American” with “U.S. citizen” or “person from the U.S.” The guide contains a number of bizarre conclusions about language. For example, it advises students against using the label “straight” as a synonym for heterosexual because it allegedly implies that those who are not straight are instead “not normal” or “crooked.” Despite the attempt to manipulate the language chosen by students, the university ironically claims in their “Inclusive Language Guide” that their aim is not to embolden political correctness.

What is next? Changing the official name from the U.S.A. to just the U.S. ? ? ?  Have the morons not noticed that the official name is the United States of America!?

[Alan Klein]

 I can't imagine a Mexican wanting to be called an American instead of a Mexican.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I can't imagine a Mexican wanting to be called an American instead of a Mexican.

?