No matter how many times you cut and paste the diversionary WH spin machine dogma, you'll notice it never attempts to refute the fact that the President is dishonest.
Yes, the President is dishonest. Is that a Presidential attribute unique to Bill Clinton?
Presidential impeachment has gone as far as it's gone so far 3 times in history. With Andrew Johnson, it was clearly a political matter, yes? With Nixon, the things that lead to impeachment very clearly had to do with Presidential actions in the electoral and political realm. With Clinton, there's this personal sex thing, and resisting the Starr inquisition. With Iran/Contra, there were fairly obvious Constitutional issues involved, and much more in the way of coverup and lying, but impeachment talk never went anywhere.
Clinton a proven liar? Dougjn has argued the perjury case is far from clear. He seems to have a lot more legal knowledge than you do, or any of the rest of the Clinton bashers here. Me, I will state again, being evasive in a politically motivated, currently moribund civil suit just doesn't seem like the "treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors" the framers were thinking of. Others differ, that's their right. Iran-Contra seemed like a weightier matter. You find that irrelevant? Ok, we disagree. You want to hurl invective, get in line behind Mr. Vaughn, with his curious definitions of "lying", "facts", "substance", and "ranting". |
