[Politics] TRUMP IS GUILTY

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/mueller-if-we-had-confidence-that-the-president-did-not-commit-a-crime-we-would-have-said-so-841450/

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/robert-mueller-did-not-determine-if-trump-committed-crime.html

Mueller's remarks, which lasted 10 minutes, reiterated the key conclusions of the Special Counsel's report, including he and his team could not determine whether President Trump committed a crime. "If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so," he said.

It is not a question of guilt. It is a question of whether or not the Republican US President is Above the Law.

Mueller, unable to truly put country above party also resigns. Mueller is a Republican.

TRUMP. IS. GUILTY.

I think the thing that stuck out to me was 'We couldn't determine if he president committed a crime. But we did get several other co-conspirators'
Like...what? What conspiracy? You just said you didn't find enough evidence to indict the president, how could you have found enough evidence of that exact crime(conspiracy and obstruction of justice) to charge other people?

Also good luck not testifying. Subpoenas are not to be ignored by private citizens.

Your title is misleading. Nothing states Trump is guilty, it states it cannot be affirmed he's innocent. There's quite a difference. Off course Trump's tweet which states "Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you." does make it sound like he isn't innocent...

Okay, judging from the multiple other threads on this topic in R&P and here, you're not willing to actually engage in any sort of discussion of any sort on this topic. What, exactly, is your goal here? Why create multiple threads on the same topic, when you know well they're inflammatory, and aren't willing to actually discuss the topic?

Silentpony:
Also good luck not testifying. Subpoenas are not to be ignored by private citizens.

Who enforces that, though, and are they in cahoots?

Thaluikhain:

Silentpony:
Also good luck not testifying. Subpoenas are not to be ignored by private citizens.

Who enforces that, though, and are they in cahoots?

As far as I can tell the Master at Arms of the House. He/She has the power to arrest people who refuse subpoenas.

Oh dear...its that time of the day for Sealune...another Trump thread.

No offense.

Cool beans.

Wake me up when he's in jail and out of the white house.

bluegate:
Cool beans.

Wake me up when he's in jail and out of the white house.

Please be voted out of office by a Democratic Candidate. I am tired of Trump Mania at the moment.

generals3:
Your title is misleading. Nothing states Trump is guilty, it states it cannot be affirmed he's innocent. There's quite a difference.

Not to Saelune. That he's Republican even means that the burden of proof should be lower than if he were Democrat, because equality.

Thaluikhain:

Silentpony:
Also good luck not testifying. Subpoenas are not to be ignored by private citizens.

Who enforces that, though, and are they in cahoots?

For a Congressional subpoena from the House? The Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives, currently Paul D. Irving.

bluegate:
Cool beans.

Wake me up when he's in jail and out of the white house.

That can't happen until either you can convince a GOP Senate to vote against him, he loses in 2020, or he finishes a second term. Best odds is on him losing in 2020, but only if the Dems put forward someone who can actually get people outside the coasts to vote for them. Otherwise, unless they take the Senate or get some truly damning evidence that will risk GOP Senators losing their seats if they ignore we are stuck with him till 2024.

generals3:
Your title is misleading. Nothing states Trump is guilty, it states it cannot be affirmed he's innocent. There's quite a difference. Off course Trump's tweet which states "Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you." does make it sound like he isn't innocent...

Eacaraxe:
Okay, judging from the multiple other threads on this topic in R&P and here, you're not willing to actually engage in any sort of discussion of any sort on this topic. What, exactly, is your goal here? Why create multiple threads on the same topic, when you know well they're inflammatory, and aren't willing to actually discuss the topic?

Schadrach:

generals3:
Your title is misleading. Nothing states Trump is guilty, it states it cannot be affirmed he's innocent. There's quite a difference.

Not to Saelune. That he's Republican even means that the burden of proof should be lower than if he were Democrat, because equality.

Thaluikhain:

Silentpony:
Also good luck not testifying. Subpoenas are not to be ignored by private citizens.

Who enforces that, though, and are they in cahoots?

For a Congressional subpoena from the House? The Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives, currently Paul D. Irving.

bluegate:
Cool beans.

Wake me up when he's in jail and out of the white house.

That can't happen until either you can convince a GOP Senate to vote against him, he loses in 2020, or he finishes a second term. Best odds is on him losing in 2020, but only if the Dems put forward someone who can actually get people outside the coasts to vote for them. Otherwise, unless they take the Senate or get some truly damning evidence that will risk GOP Senators losing their seats if they ignore we are stuck with him till 2024.

We aren't robots, we are people. Mueller has said if he was innocent, he would say he was innocent, but because the Department of Justice has the position of 'The Sitting President is above the law/cannot be persecuted by the law' so he refuses to outright say he is guilty.

The only way anyone can read that Trump is not guilty is because they are Pro-Trump.

Samtemdo8:
Oh dear...its that time of the day for Sealune...another Trump thread.

No offense.

Its not the time of the day, it is the time where Mueller has all but literally said the words that Trump is guilty. Otherwise I would not have made a new topic that once again confirms what every left-winger knew since before day 1.

Eacaraxe:
Okay, judging from the multiple other threads on this topic in R&P and here, you're not willing to actually engage in any sort of discussion of any sort on this topic. What, exactly, is your goal here? Why create multiple threads on the same topic, when you know well they're inflammatory, and aren't willing to actually discuss the topic?

When the opposition to me has something other than a load of lies and bullshit, I will have a discussion with it. The facts are against Trump's side as they have always been.

People just dont like that I am not afraid to call them out. That I am unapologetic in being right. That I dont say please and thank you to those who support a President who wants to oppress me and millions of others.

God why Okay, cursory glance basically says... as it says. No clear confidence in making the assertion without a doubt that Donald didn't break the law. Yet none in the other direction either. Back in square 1 of this circus. Great waste of money that this has been.

Schadrach:

That can't happen until either you can convince a GOP Senate to vote against him, he loses in 2020, or he finishes a second term. Best odds is on him losing in 2020, but only if the Dems put forward someone who can actually get people outside the coasts to vote for them.

I'm reminded of a bit of Lewis Black standup I wish I had a clip for. In short, it was talking shit at the Republicans for putting Bush forward, but also shitting on the Democrats for managing to not put someone forward that could beat Bush in a reelection, despite the incredible ease at which one could do so. In short, I'm seeing a repeat of 2004 happening here. Trump is supposedly Hitler, but the Dems can't find someone that can defeat Hitler and instead choose to shove all these idiots in the funnel to see what works, but now they've gone and clogged the funnel with people that probably couldn't beat him anyway. Next year is going to be very entertaining.

Leg End:
God why Okay, cursory glance basically says... as it says. No clear confidence in making the assertion without a doubt that Donald didn't break the law. Yet none in the other direction either. Back in square 1 of this circus. Great waste of money that this has been.

Schadrach:

That can't happen until either you can convince a GOP Senate to vote against him, he loses in 2020, or he finishes a second term. Best odds is on him losing in 2020, but only if the Dems put forward someone who can actually get people outside the coasts to vote for them.

I'm reminded of a bit of Lewis Black standup I wish I had a clip for. In short, it was talking shit at the Republicans for putting Bush forward, but also shitting on the Democrats for managing to not put someone forward that could beat Bush in a reelection, despite the incredible ease at which one could do so. In short, I'm seeing a repeat of 2004 happening here. Trump is supposedly Hitler, but the Dems can't find someone that can defeat Hitler and instead choose to shove all these idiots in the funnel to see what works, but now they've gone and clogged the funnel with people that probably couldn't beat him anyway. Next year is going to be very entertaining.

Gore beat Bush. The Supreme Court beat Gore.

Saelune:
Gore beat Bush. The Supreme Court beat Gore.

Electoral College, narrow victory in any department, moving on. That they couldn't find someone to beat Bush in the 2004 election is no less completely jaw dropping, and the Democrats are on the same path to repeating history. If their candidate loses in 2020, they will never live it down as long as the party continues to exist.

Saelune:

Samtemdo8:
Oh dear...its that time of the day for Sealune...another Trump thread.

No offense.

Its not the time of the day, it is the time where Mueller has all but literally said the words that Trump is guilty. Otherwise I would not have made a new topic that once again confirms what every left-winger knew since before day 1.

I just want this show to end already. 4 more years of Trump is gonna be exhausting.

Leg End:

Saelune:
Gore beat Bush. The Supreme Court beat Gore.

Electoral College, narrow victory in any department, moving on. That they couldn't find someone to beat Bush in the 2004 election is no less completely jaw dropping, and the Democrats are on the same path to repeating history. If their candidate loses in 2020, they will never live it down as long as the party continues to exist.

A foreshadowing of the Fall of 'Democracy' in America.

Samtemdo8:

Saelune:

Samtemdo8:
Oh dear...its that time of the day for Sealune...another Trump thread.

No offense.

Its not the time of the day, it is the time where Mueller has all but literally said the words that Trump is guilty. Otherwise I would not have made a new topic that once again confirms what every left-winger knew since before day 1.

I just want this show to end already. 4 more years of Trump is gonna be exhausting.

I want the US to become what it always pretended it was, a melting pot of diversity and equality. Even if everyone turned on Trump today, we are still far from where we should have already been.

Saelune:
A foreshadowing of the Fall of 'Democracy' in America.

Never been a straight Democracy. If you're actually majority opinion, drown the Elephants.

Saelune:
We aren't robots, we are people. Mueller has said if he was innocent, he would say he was innocent, but because the Department of Justice has the position of 'The Sitting President is above the law/cannot be persecuted by the law' so he refuses to outright say he is guilty.

The only way anyone can read that Trump is not guilty is because they are Pro-Trump.

No, he said that he cannot charge the president. Charging someone doesn't make them guilty either. He couldn't have said Trump is guilty regardless of him being president or not. A court has to determine guilt.

So as far as we know he's neither innocent or guilty. He's potentially both. While imho he seems guilty, that doesn't make it true.

Leg End:
God why Okay, cursory glance basically says... as it says. No clear confidence in making the assertion without a doubt that Donald didn't break the law. Yet none in the other direction either. Back in square 1 of this circus. Great waste of money that this has been.

Actually, I think Mueller's statement is as clear as anything implicit can be that there is sufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of justice.

He says that he does not believe it was within his remit to indict the president. It would be unfair to openly accuse Trump without the ability to indict him as it would leave the accusation hanging over him without the ability to clear his name. This therefore explains his extremely cautious phrasing.

Yes, that is not the same as Trump being guilty. However, even a prosecution being recommended is appalling for a president, only saved from criminal prosecution just because he is president.

Leg End:
God why Okay, cursory glance basically says... as it says. No clear confidence in making the assertion without a doubt that Donald didn't break the law. Yet none in the other direction either. Back in square 1 of this circus. Great waste of money that this has been.

Schadrach:

That can't happen until either you can convince a GOP Senate to vote against him, he loses in 2020, or he finishes a second term. Best odds is on him losing in 2020, but only if the Dems put forward someone who can actually get people outside the coasts to vote for them.

I'm reminded of a bit of Lewis Black standup I wish I had a clip for. In short, it was talking shit at the Republicans for putting Bush forward, but also shitting on the Democrats for managing to not put someone forward that could beat Bush in a reelection, despite the incredible ease at which one could do so. In short, I'm seeing a repeat of 2004 happening here. Trump is supposedly Hitler, but the Dems can't find someone that can defeat Hitler and instead choose to shove all these idiots in the funnel to see what works, but now they've gone and clogged the funnel with people that probably couldn't beat him anyway. Next year is going to be very entertaining.

What did this cost? Like $33 million? Trump has spent over 3 times that just on weekend golf, coming in at over $100 million. Actually even as these things go, its not as costly as some others, the Bill Clinton investigation cost around $69 million and Iran-Contra was $47 million, not adjusted for inflation.

Worgen:

What did this cost? Like $33 million? Trump has spent over 3 times that just on weekend golf, coming in at over $100 million. Actually even as these things go, its not as costly as some others, the Bill Clinton investigation cost around $69 million and Iran-Contra was $47 million, not adjusted for inflation.

Still a giant chunk of change we're not seeing again.

Leg End:

Worgen:

What did this cost? Like $33 million? Trump has spent over 3 times that just on weekend golf, coming in at over $100 million. Actually even as these things go, its not as costly as some others, the Bill Clinton investigation cost around $69 million and Iran-Contra was $47 million, not adjusted for inflation.

Still a giant chunk of change we're not seeing again.

Which has actually yielded results also, we have a bunch of indictments for a lot of people around trump. Its just that Muller was approaching this from the angle that a sitting president cannot be indicted, so the report could really only find him not guilt, which it didn't. But, it left the results of the investigation up to congress, which is what the current fight is about.

Leg End:

Worgen:

What did this cost? Like $33 million? Trump has spent over 3 times that just on weekend golf, coming in at over $100 million. Actually even as these things go, its not as costly as some others, the Bill Clinton investigation cost around $69 million and Iran-Contra was $47 million, not adjusted for inflation.

Still a giant chunk of change we're not seeing again.

They could just take some of Trump's properties to pay for it, after of course they liquidate his assets to pay all the people he didn't pay over the years.. if there is anything left after that (there is a long line of unpaid bills to get in line behind). :p

EDIT: Although that was made somewhat in jest, Trumps accounts were flagged for possible Money Laundering. If further investigation shows that to be the case, under Federal law, they very well could seize his properties. It has also been shown that he has committed Fraud, another crime that could result in Asset Forfeiture.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/deutsche-bank-money-laundering-suspicions-trump-kushner.html
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/criminal-division/asset-forfeiture-and-money-laundering

Regardless, Justice would be served if he was forced to pay everyone he didn't pay and all the monies he cost people over his lifetime, with interest.

Saelune:
When the opposition to me has something other than a load of lies and bullshit, I will have a discussion with it.

No, no you won't. You'll spew invective and unilaterally pronounce them "lies and bullshit", and accuse them of being "pro-Trump", just as you always do. Just as you just did. Please, allow me to prove it.

The problem with this is while Trump shouldn't be "above" the law, he shouldn't be below it, either. Personally, I don't believe the DoJ should be empowered with appointing special counsels to investigate allegations of Executive malfeasance in the first place, because the same conflicts of interest that are the reason to appoint special counsels in the first place (DoJ is part of the Executive department, and DoJ appointments are Executive appointments), also apply to special counsels as DoJ appointments. True for Trump, true for Clinton, true for Nixon, true for all the special counsels that preceded it.

Oh, but I already hear the cries of "buh buh Nixon!". Jaworski worked with the House Judiciary committee, to convince them to subpoena the tapes. That act came from Congressional authority, not the DoJ. Cox fought with the White House for six months or so prior to get the tapes and got nowhere. The existence of the taping system and tapes in the first place, came to light due to Senate Watergate committee hearings. The special counsel ultimately went nowhere and got nothing done, other than to provide a confidential memo to the Judiciary committee as to what evidence to subpoena.

And, as for Clinton? Ken Starr's report recommended impeachment; he made no attempt to indict Clinton himself, despite believing special counsels had the authority to indict sitting Presidents, and even having drawn up a draft indictment. Which is what Mueller was certain to have done had he found a credible case for impeachment. The issue boils down to the interplay between prosecutorial discretion and the reasonable-doubt standard, as applies to cases in which a sitting President would be the defendant.

If a prosecutor doesn't have a strong enough case to have a credible chance at conviction, they have the discretion to nol-pros the case. In other words, if the prosecutor doesn't believe they can prove beyond reasonable doubt the accused committed the crime, they don't indict. Except in this case, Mueller stood by precedent (bipartisan precedent), which put him in an impossible situation: if he can't indict, it stands to reason he can't nol-pros either. Therefore, his only recourse was to report and defer to the House, in which impeachment powers lie.

At the end of the day, the ball's in the House's court. It always was. Democrats' entire platform, it seems, in 2018 was investigating Trump with the intent to impeach; time to fufill that campaign promise, eh?

generals3:

Saelune:
We aren't robots, we are people. Mueller has said if he was innocent, he would say he was innocent, but because the Department of Justice has the position of 'The Sitting President is above the law/cannot be persecuted by the law' so he refuses to outright say he is guilty.

The only way anyone can read that Trump is not guilty is because they are Pro-Trump.

No, he said that he cannot charge the president. Charging someone doesn't make them guilty either. He couldn't have said Trump is guilty regardless of him being president or not. A court has to determine guilt.

So as far as we know he's neither innocent or guilty. He's potentially both. While imho he seems guilty, that doesn't make it true.

Mueller has said Trump is not innocent and that he wont declare a sitting President guilty. Its really not complicated beyond Mueller's support of a fascist line of thinking where the President is above the law.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
When the opposition to me has something other than a load of lies and bullshit, I will have a discussion with it.

No, no you won't. You'll spew invective and unilaterally pronounce them "lies and bullshit", and accuse them of being "pro-Trump", just as you always do. Just as you just did. Please, allow me to prove it.

The problem with this is while Trump shouldn't be "above" the law, he shouldn't be below it, either. Personally, I don't believe the DoJ should be empowered with appointing special counsels to investigate allegations of Executive malfeasance in the first place, because the same conflicts of interest that are the reason to appoint special counsels in the first place (DoJ is part of the Executive department, and DoJ appointments are Executive appointments), also apply to special counsels as DoJ appointments. True for Trump, true for Clinton, true for Nixon, true for all the special counsels that preceded it.

Oh, but I already hear the cries of "buh buh Nixon!". Jaworski worked with the House Judiciary committee, to convince them to subpoena the tapes. That act came from Congressional authority, not the DoJ. Cox fought with the White House for six months or so prior to get the tapes and got nowhere. The existence of the taping system and tapes in the first place, came to light due to Senate Watergate committee hearings. The special counsel ultimately went nowhere and got nothing done, other than to provide a confidential memo to the Judiciary committee as to what evidence to subpoena.

And, as for Clinton? Ken Starr's report recommended impeachment; he made no attempt to indict Clinton himself, despite believing special counsels had the authority to indict sitting Presidents, and even having drawn up a draft indictment. Which is what Mueller was certain to have done had he found a credible case for impeachment. The issue boils down to the interplay between prosecutorial discretion and the reasonable-doubt standard, as applies to cases in which a sitting President would be the defendant.

If a prosecutor doesn't have a strong enough case to have a credible chance at conviction, they have the discretion to nol-pros the case. In other words, if the prosecutor doesn't believe they can prove beyond reasonable doubt the accused committed the crime, they don't indict. Except in this case, Mueller stood by precedent (bipartisan precedent), which put him in an impossible situation: if he can't indict, it stands to reason he can't nol-pros either. Therefore, his only recourse was to report and defer to the House, in which impeachment powers lie.

At the end of the day, the ball's in the House's court. It always was. Democrats' entire platform, it seems, in 2018 was investigating Trump with the intent to impeach; time to fufill that campaign promise, eh?

You will defend Trump no matter what. You will never believe me no matter what. You want to accuse me of being unable to accept the truth when you are unwilling to accept the truth. At best, it is the pot calling the kettle black.

Saelune:
You will defend Trump no matter what. You will never believe me no matter what. You want to accuse me of being unable to accept the truth when you are unwilling to accept the truth. At best, it is the pot calling the kettle black.

Case in point.

My entire point is the Western justice system does not work the way you seem to believe it does, nor does it work the way you seem to believe it should. Because we have adopted the idea those accused of criminal offenses should be given due process in courts of law, and the determination of guilt is based upon an accusers' ability to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. Like him or not, Trump is a citizen of the United States, and as a citizen of the United States he is entitled to due process.

You're arguing a special counsel, appointed by the DoJ who is in turn appointed by the President, should have unilateral right to usurp Congressional authority as enumerated in Article I to indict the President of criminal charges. And for what, to try him in the criminal justice system, itself under the authority of the Judiciary, which is expressly forbidden from this by Article III (likely because, as any person with a functioning brain can note, the federal Judiciary is appointed by the Executive branch). Basically throwing our entire system of procedural checks and balances right the fuck out the window.

For as much as you bitch about Nazis, your ideas of what criminal justice should be are awfully similar to theirs.

The funny thing is, in your eager rush to prove my point you call me a Trump supporter. I actually believe the Democrats should initiate impeachment proceedings, and think all this dithering and feigned outrage by Congressional Democrats is nothing more than an attempt to weasel out of their campaign promises because they believe it may hurt their 2020 prospects. Either you believe he's guilty or you don't; if you do, then you damn well should be arguing for Democrats to impeach the shithead, and asking yourself why they haven't started yet.

Me, I'm going to look at the situation for what it is, based on the facts and behavior at hand. I don't believe Democrats had any intent of impeachment, and their campaign promises were as empty as any other. They want him finishing his term, because that's what they believe will give them the best-available path to winning in 2020. They're only willing to throw the entire country under the bus for it, and this little tantrum they're currently throwing is because now they have to either nut up or shut up.

Ace Attorney should really make a game based on this case. It's so retarded and cartoony, that it would definitely fit with the games aesthetics. Donald, his presidency, and his case is one big live action cartoon.

What exactly are you planning to do with all this rage over Trump? I mean, I think the guy is a complete asshat as well, but is screaming from the rooftops really achieving anything? Is it helping your state of mind getting so riled up over something you can't control?

Supposing a report found Trump was irrevocably guilty. What then? If Trump stayed in power anyway due to a loophole/money/something else, where would that leave you? Expended a monumental amount of energy all for nothing. If you want to change what's going on, use your vote. Outside that, getting worked up over that which you can't control is a one-way trip to emotional ruin.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
You will defend Trump no matter what. You will never believe me no matter what. You want to accuse me of being unable to accept the truth when you are unwilling to accept the truth. At best, it is the pot calling the kettle black.

Case in point.

My entire point is the Western justice system does not work the way you seem to believe it does, nor does it work the way you seem to believe it should. Because we have adopted the idea those accused of criminal offenses should be given due process in courts of law, and the determination of guilt is based upon an accusers' ability to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. Like him or not, Trump is a citizen of the United States, and as a citizen of the United States he is entitled to due process.

You're arguing a special counsel, appointed by the DoJ who is in turn appointed by the President, should have unilateral right to usurp Congressional authority as enumerated in Article I to indict the President of criminal charges. And for what, to try him in the criminal justice system, itself under the authority of the Judiciary, which is expressly forbidden from this by Article III (likely because, as any person with a functioning brain can note, the federal Judiciary is appointed by the Executive branch). Basically throwing our entire system of procedural checks and balances right the fuck out the window.

For as much as you bitch about Nazis, your ideas of what criminal justice should be are awfully similar to theirs.

The funny thing is, in your eager rush to prove my point you call me a Trump supporter. I actually believe the Democrats should initiate impeachment proceedings, and think all this dithering and feigned outrage by Congressional Democrats is nothing more than an attempt to weasel out of their campaign promises because they believe it may hurt their 2020 prospects. Either you believe he's guilty or you don't; if you do, then you damn well should be arguing for Democrats to impeach the shithead, and asking yourself why they haven't started yet.

Me, I'm going to look at the situation for what it is, based on the facts and behavior at hand. I don't believe Democrats had any intent of impeachment, and their campaign promises were as empty as any other. They want him finishing his term, because that's what they believe will give them the best-available path to winning in 2020. They're only willing to throw the entire country under the bus for it, and this little tantrum they're currently throwing is because now they have to either nut up or shut up.

There is impeachment and removal. The chances of him being removed is almost nil since the republican controlled senate would almost certainly vote against it. More moderate democrats are afraid that initiating proceedings will bite them in the butt and give trump a boost, since there is almost no chance of actually removing him. They think the public might assume its just a stunt.

So...is this thread in any way different to the other Trump thread directly below it? How many threads about Trump do we need cluttering up off topic?

This is why we need the Religion and Politics circle jerk back.

Worgen:
More moderate democrats are afraid that initiating proceedings will bite them in the butt and give trump a boost, since there is almost no chance of actually removing him. They think the public might assume its just a stunt.

Yeah, they're comparing it to the Clinton impeachment and drawing the exactly wrong conclusions about it that will almost certainly yield similar, if not the same, electoral results. Remember the Lewinsky scandal didn't happen in a vacuum; it was the capstone of six years' worth of controversies and scandals, and virtually nonstop special counsel investigation, all of which played for electoral politics by Congressional Republicans in an environment where even if impeached, the Senate was highly unlikely to vote to remove. I mean, let's count: Gennifer Flowers, Travelgate, Cattlegate, Paula Jones, Whitewater, Filegate, then Lewinsky. That wasn't even the end, because Furnituregate happened after Clinton left office.

Starr was appointed in '94 to investigate Whitewater, and returned four years later with impeachment recommendations for a completely unrelated scandal that were largely thanks to his own investigation and a grammar debate. Just in case we forget how dumb it was.

"Investigate and impeach!" was a clarion call for '94, '96, and '98. By the time '98 came around, Americans were sick and tired of six years' of protracted lunacy and bait-and-switch electoral politics, and protest voted against it. The situation's more comparable to '95 and '96 when Whitewater was still raging, than '97 and '98. Especially for the fact it was another "nearly everyone in POTUS's inner circle ended up indicted, except POTUS because nothing could be proven" situation.

Y'know, kind of like Watergate, Iran-Contra, the S&L crisis, and now "Russiagate". The only exception to this being Watergate, and then only because Butterfield fucked up and admitted to the existence of the tapes in front of the entire country on live television. Twice.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here