You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who are more convincing liars, Repubs or Dems?
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
Quote from dddooo:
Huh? Why are you asking me, you brought up abuse of power charges which according to you were dropped by republicans "for the good of the country" while they were busy impeaching Clinton on perjury charges also "for the good of the country".
Those lesser charges, were abuse of power - to refresh your memory.
But what of those 'other' charges - lying, perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice.
For this, he was disbarred. By the Supreme Court.
But since the Reps didn't have the 2/3 majority, it was a waste of time and money. To this statement I agree.
After all, there's no reason to believe that the Democratic Senators would agree with the Supreme Court on a matter of personal conduct when partisan politics are involved.
There were no other charges, to refresh your memory. No lesser/additional charges were dropped because there never was a case against Clinton. 40 million dollar Ken Starr's investigation came up with a stained dress. Get a grip.Quote from Haroki:
Those lesser charges, were abuse of power - to refresh your memory.
Quote from dddooo:
There were no other charges, to refresh your memory. No lesser/additional charges were dropped because there never was a case against Clinton. 40 million dollar Ken Starr's investigation came up with a stained dress. Get a grip.
As a matter of semantics, you are correct. No charges were brought against him. But was it because there was no case against him? Or because after seeing the partisan voting on the perjury charges, they said what's the use?
What's your answer to the rest ?
I have to go with the presumption of [Clinton's] innocence and total lack of evidence that Republicans/Ken Starr had a solid case but decided not to pursue it. The fact that they did not have any dirt on Hillary during her senatorial campaign kind of confirms it as well.Quote from Haroki:
As a matter of semantics, you are correct. No charges were brought against him. But was it because there was no case against him? Or because after seeing the partisan voting on the perjury charges, they said what's the use?
Quote from dddooo:
I have to go with the presumption of [Clinton's] innocence and total lack of evidence that Republicans/Ken Starr had a solid case but decided not to pursue it. The fact that they did not have any dirt on Hillary during her senatorial campaign kind of confirms it as well.
Regarding the abuse of power, yeah, it could have been a weaker case.
But regarding the perjury case, surely you're not suggesting that the Supreme Court got it wrong.
Hillary proves nothing other than that there isn't much evidence. I assume you're referring about the investment thing that made her like 1000% profit - Whitewater ?
Can't remember here - what was Nixon outed for. Was it abuse of power - covering up Watergate?
The perjury case was valid, I only objected to your claim that republicans dropped other (abuse of power) charges for the good of the country. They just did not have a case (in legal sense having a weaker case which you can't prosecute is the same as not having a case).Quote from Haroki:
Regarding the abuse of power, yeah, it could have been a weaker case.
But regarding the perjury case, surely you're not suggesting that the Supreme Court got it wrong.