The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

[Flagg]

Pretty much. Now the US (and the rest of us) will pay for the US' national lack of spine in prosecuting its criminal leaders. Pelosi had two while GWB was in power, and Obama had eight years to bring charges. I wonder if this can all be traced back to Ford pardoning Nixon so everyone could feel better about themselves?

A bit. I think that had more to do with setting a precedent of Presidents not being prosecuted after they leave office. It was basically a CYA for all future POTUS'.

I think Pelosi in 2006 was afraid that an impeachment of Bush II would have the "Clinton Effect" of making Dubya's approval ratings go up lie Clinton's in 1998/99. I don't agree since one was all about Bill having his dick in a Jews mouth on Easter which was between him and his wife and the entire case was basically a "gotcha!" for lying under oath about something that was no ones fucking business while the Bush impeachment was all about negligence before 9/11, lying the US and it's dumber allies into a war of aggression and choice, and the massive use of torture

I would point out something that has been on Vox recently: Clinton's perjury wasn't just about him fucking a woman. It was about an executive fucking a subordinate in the office. That wasn't how it was framed, but nowadays the whole thing would be a huge scandal not because sex, but because sexual harassment and abuse of power.

True, but I don't really care since Clinton's dick-capades were treated like he sold a B2 to China. It was basically the one thing they could get him on after 6 years of nonstop investigations.

[Flagg]

Yeah, I actually have pretty much zero sympathy for Bill on that score.

Doesn't make the Republicans going after him any better-see Gingrich and especially Hastert-but Bill probably ought to have been impeached.

He was impeached.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, I know. I'm saying that he probably deserved to be.

And convicted, for that matter, while we're at it.

[Flagg]

Yes, I know. I'm saying that he probably deserved to be.

And convicted, for that matter, while we're at it.

He was convicted. The punishment was a censure.

[Highlord Laan]

And the censure had nothing to do with him getting head in the oval office. He was impeached for perjury. Which, I will admit, should have landed him in prison, president or not. Since the same would have been done to any and all of us non-wealthy people no matter what position we held.

Never happen though, even if he hadn't been a siting president. Going to prison would have adversely affected his career, so he would have received a slap on the wrist at most. Maybe a fine.

[Flagg]

And the censure had nothing to do with him getting head in the oval office. He was impeached for perjury. Which, I will admit, should have landed him in prison, president or not. Since the same would have been done to any and all of us non-wealthy people no matter what position we held.

Never happen though, even if he hadn't been a siting president. Going to prison would have adversely affected his career, so he would have received a slap on the wrist at most. Maybe a fine.

Yeah, he lied about having his dick in a Jews mouth on Easter. Which had nothing to do with anything and was a private matter between him, the headgiver, and his wife.

[SCRawl]

He was not convicted. Nor was he censured. Censure was the compromise that was (IIRC) proposed by the House Democrats instead of impeachment, but the Republicans insisted on going the full route. Indeed, I recall watching news coverage at the time: they actually left the building and went outside in protest for a while, but high-tailed it back to get into place to vote against impeachment before their time ran out. If President Clinton had been convicted, we would have had President Al Gore after all.

Yeah, he lied about having his dick in a Jews mouth on Easter. Which had nothing to do with anything and was a private matter between him, the headgiver, and his wife.

Well, like many things in life, yes and no. Yes, it should have been a private matter. But once he's asked about it by someone with standing to do so, and he has sworn before a legitimate court (or the equivalent, a deposition, in this case) to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and he fails to do so, then no, it's not just a private matter anymore, it's perjury and that's serious business. Ditto for obstruction of justice. Does it rise to the level of "High crimes and misdemeanors"? I don't think so, and neither did enough of the Senate at the time to convict him.

[Flagg]

He was not convicted. Nor was he censured. Censure was the compromise that was (IIRC) proposed by the House Democrats instead of impeachment, but the Republicans insisted on going the full route. Indeed, I recall watching news coverage at the time: they actually left the building and went outside in protest for a while, but high-tailed it back to get into place to vote against impeachment before their time ran out. If President Clinton had been convicted, we would have had President Al Gore after all.

Yeah, he lied about having his dick in a Jews mouth on Easter. Which had nothing to do with anything and was a private matter between him, the headgiver, and his wife.

Well, like many things in life, yes and no. Yes, it should have been a private matter. But once he's asked about it by someone with standing to do so, and he has sworn before a legitimate court (or the equivalent, a deposition, in this case) to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and he fails to do so, then no, it's not just a private matter anymore, it's perjury and that's serious business. Ditto for obstruction of justice. Does it rise to the level of "High crimes and misdemeanors"? I don't think so, and neither did enough of the Senate at the time to convict him.

I misremembered then. In any case, it may have been perjury, but the lie was about something that didn't matter which is why his approval rates shot through the roof.

Duplicate post deleted - SCRawl

[Ralin]

I haven't been able to find a source backing this up, but I've been told that oral sex was not considered a sexual act under the legal definition of the term in the District of Columbia at the time (it is now). Curious whether anyone can confirm or deny that.

[Flagg]

I haven't been able to find a source backing this up, but I've been told that oral sex was not considered a sexual act under the legal definition of the term in the District of Columbia at the time (it is now). Curious whether anyone can confirm or deny that.

Yeah, that was Clinton's teams argument and they won.

[Ralin]

Yeah, that was Clinton's teams argument and they won.

Oh, I totally didn't remember that from when I was a kid.

[Flagg]

Yeah, that was Clinton's teams argument and they won.

Oh, I totally didn't remember that from when I was a kid.

Yeah, it was a long time ago. I think I was like 15 or 16.

[Broomstick]

I was in my 30's - you guys make me feel old.

(but being old beats the alternative)

[Elfdart]

I haven't been able to find a source backing this up, but I've been told that oral sex was not considered a sexual act under the legal definition of the term in the District of Columbia at the time (it is now). Curious whether anyone can confirm or deny that.

The term used in court (and Bubba's infamous press conference) was sexual relations, meaning intercourse. The reason for the distinction comes from common law (among other places*) where, for example, failure of a married couple to engage in sexual relations could be grounds for divorce and possibly annulment. In other words, failure to consummate. Bubba, as far as anyone knows, got his dick sucked by an intern -so no sexual relations.

*There's a reason blowjobs have always been considered "Third Base", which is to say, not quite scoring.