That Clinton thing
So here's how I see it.
Let's say that in 1990 OJ Simpson's neighbor smacked his wife around a bit - black eye, broken rib. The DA investigates, indicts, and puts the guy in jail for two years.
Then the OJ thing happens, and due to the incompetence of the LAPD, OJ's jury acquits him.
Would you really argue that the wife-beating neighbor should be let go because at least he didn't kill anyone? That if you could go back in time, he never should've been prosecuted because, compared to a double murder, wife beating isn't that bad?
Or is it possible that both guys broke the law, one's been punished, and the only crime right now is that the second one hasn't been?
I fucking hate the whole "Clinton shouldn't have been impeached because Bush is much worse" crap. Let. The. Clinton. Thing. Go. It's done. It's over. He served his term and is going to look a hell of a lot better to history thanks to George the Revelator.*
The big problem is that when you bring up Clinton, you sideline the conversation. What we want is action taken against Bush, no matter what happened to Clinton. Bringing up Clinton's impeachment just gets everything snarled up in partisan debate over something that ended eight years ago.
Forget it. Move on. Ignore the shiny thing and focus on the goal.
March 21st, 2007 5:12pm
"The big problem is that when you bring up Clinton, you sideline the conversation. What we want is action taken against Bush, no matter what happened to Clinton."
Why? Because nobody likes Bush. Lets at least be a little fair.
From my researching the issue; it looks like Clinton had the right to fire all 93 US attorneys just like Reagan fired 80 something, etc, etc. It looks like the President has the right to do so, if the president doesn't like the ties that they wear; the president can fire the Attorneys. But it looks like they are going after Gonzalez and Bush is because of the way they have handled the firing issue. Instead of claiming they were poor prosecutors or didnt have a policy which aligned with the Whitehouse. It seems like they were fired because they weren't loyal Bushies and possibly performing internal investigations into the Republican Whitehouse.
The thing that gets me most about the Whitehouse; they seem to be so bad at being evil. Rookies.
March 21st, 2007 5:48pm
The issue with the former firings is that they were done at the end of a term - it's "okay, you lot out, new lot in" a clean sweep, 90-some new slots for patronage, let's get on with business.
What *no* President has ever done is picked and chosen to fire various attorneys mid-term because they didn't like how those attorneys were doing their jobs (i.e. prosecuting members of the same party, not prosecuting members of the other party, etc). With the addition of the power for the President to simply appoint new attorneys without the advice and consent of Congress, it made the US Attorneys an extension of the Executive Branch, whereas in the past they had been tacitly neutral.
Of course, in the grandest tradition it's looking like it's not the attorney firings that will really hurt - it's the cover up, lying under oath, and destruction of official documents that will cause the most pain.
March 21st, 2007 5:54pm
That's a cool video.
So why are you bringing up Clinton? Are people going on about Clinton again somewhere?
March 21st, 2007 6:30pm
Blowjobs 4 Jesus.
March 21st, 2007 7:21pm
Alright, you're suspended. Pack your things and go home.
March 21st, 2007 8:19pm
March 21st, 2007 9:39pm
>>> I fucking hate the whole "Clinton shouldn't have been impeached because Bush is much worse" crap. Let. The. Clinton. Thing. Go. It's done. It's over. He served his term and is going to look a hell of a lot better to history thanks to George the Revelator.*
Nice strawman argument, but that's not what anyone w/ half a brain says.
Clinton shouldn't have been impeached because lying about an affair is no more relevant to being president than lying about your favourite colour or fantasy. What if he'd lied about ever masturbating in public? Would that have justified impeaching him?
The difference is that Bush's lies have been in support of and used to justify his policies.
March 21st, 2007 10:14pm
"Clinton shouldn't have been impeached because lying about an affair is no more relevant to being president than lying about your favourite colour or fantasy."
He committed a felony. Maybe you don't like the perjury laws, but that was the law, and he broke it.
Hell, you folks want to impeach Bush for "lying to the American people" which not only isn't illegal, it's a very bad policy to have in place.
In any event, you're making my point - who the fuck CARES what happened to Clinton? Start esoteric debates about impeachment law somewhere else. Stop sidelining the important discussions about cleaning up the current mess.
March 21st, 2007 10:44pm
Well, you brought it up this time.
March 21st, 2007 11:07pm
"What if he'd lied about ever masturbating in public?"
Do a lot of people do that? As far as I can remember, I've not done it. What's the attraction? Is it more exciting than masturbating at home?
March 21st, 2007 11:09pm
I remember as a teenager I masturbated in the bath once. _big_ mistake. huge. haven't done it since.
March 21st, 2007 11:14pm
obviously reminds me of the old joke about the gay guys in the public hottub
March 22nd, 2007 1:54am
The felony would not have occurred had there not been a trial that should never have happened.
But increasingly our justice system isn't used to serve justice. It is used to serve revenge. It is used as a weapon against enemies. It focus political power (and the chutzpah to abuse it) into a ray gun masked under the cloak of some noble concept of 'justice'.
March 22nd, 2007 10:50am
"Hell, you folks want to impeach Bush for "lying to the American people" which not only isn't illegal, it's a very bad policy to have in place."
It falls under the same umbrella as juries finding people not guilty even though they clearly broke the law. The justification/reasoning is completely different.
Lying about a blow job, under oath, to the American people, whatever, just isn't something I think breaks the perjury law. It may be a clear violation, but the grey area of justice is supposed to be handled by juries. What's the impact of that 'crime'? What is the motivation?
Now, even without being under oath, what is the impact of lying about WMDs, fabricating evidence, or exposing our intelligence officers' identities? What's the impact of that? What's the motivation?
One of these things is *nothing* like the other.
March 22nd, 2007 10:55am
Lying under oath about a fact material to the instant case has been perjerous for hundreds of years. To be honest, the only people who really debate whether or not Clinton committed perjury are generally pro-Democratic laymen who either haven't bothered to actually understand what was going on, or have partisan blinders as to what their hero did.
The problem with trying to make "lying to the American people from the podium" a crime is that then every time you have different parties running Congress and the White House you'll have Congress trying to say the President lied about something in a speech or the State of teh Union Address. Let Pelosi impeach Bush for lying about the WMD's and what do you think happens when Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton give a State of the Union speech to a Republican Congress and make some policy promise that doesn't quite come through?
It's a pandora's box best left unopened. For both sides.
And for Christ's sake, why the constant harping about the WMD thing? He's committed acts of war against sovereign nations, violated the Geneva Convention, committed war crimes, authorized spying on US Citizens in violation of the FISA law - there are plenty of things you could impeach the guy on if you could just broaden your sights a little...
March 22nd, 2007 5:24pm
> if you could just broaden your sights a little...