Palin had side order of Rice before marriage

[mhaze]

....
To those who now claim that they only were concerned with Clinton's perjury and not with his "affairs", I give a hearty "BS". Clinton was defamed by Republicans for his affairs long before he was ever charged with perjury. Long long. Surely you won't deny this.

Smears and insults and defamation seems to be the American way of politics.

That's a little itty bit different than criminal charges.

 

[RandFan]

I hated Clinton. I never voted for him. At the time I was pretty conservative but the charges against him were utter BS. I took heat from friends and family when I came to his defense. We wasted boatloads of cash to prosecute sexual indescretion under the guise of perjury because he lied about sex. He deserved the public spanking for his pedantic "what 'is'. is". But other than that it was political theater. FWIW, personally I'm pretty sure he knew the white water funds were going into his account and I have some real concerns about Betty Broderick, but none of that justifies the long and expensive investigation. They knew they didn't have a case when Jim McDougal's credibility was compromised and his wife refused to testify.

 

[mhaze]

The charges were not BS unless lying under oath is not lying under oath on some topics and not on others.

You may not like the topic, and there is prosecutorial discretion on when to proceed with cases of perjury as well as obstruction.

However, this doesn't make the charges BS. Not-at-all.

 

[sarge]

The charges were not BS unless lying under oath is not lying under oath on some topics and not on others.

You may not like the topic, and there is prosecutorial discretion on when to proceed with cases of perjury as well as obstruction.

However, this doesn't make the charges BS. Not-at-all.

Had Clinton been tried in a court, with all the protections that implies, you might have a point. Clinton was tried in a political body by politicians for political reasons.

By the way, if we are going to use the terms "prosecute" and "trial" then we must also use the term "aquit" - which is what happened after all. Apparently, the "jury" says that Clinton was "not guilty" of perjury. Indeed, fewer than half of the "jurors" were convinced of his guilt - and 100% of those were Republicans.

The impeachment was completely political, and the crime was sex.

 

[zooterkin]

Sarah Palin has jumped the shark.

She has litterally become as relevant as Henry Winkler.

You're doing the Fonz a disservice, he is actually relevant.

Happy Days star Henry Winkler has been made an honorary OBE for his work on dyslexia in the UK.

The actor and director, who played the Fonz in the classic US sitcom, said it was "humbling" to receive the honour, awarded at the British embassy in Washington DC.

Having been diagnosed with dyslexia as an adult, Winkler has toured schools in the UK over the last two years to talk about the learning difficulty.

He has also written books for children about Hank Zipzer, a boy with dyslexia, whose experiences are based on the actor's own childhood struggles.

 

[sarge]

He wasn't charged. He was pardoned of all crimes by President Ford in order to prevent charges. Ford as much as admitted that Nixon had committed crimes, but that he thought Nixon had "suffered enough". However, several of Nixon's subordinates went to prison for doing the same things that he, quite provably, did. And the crimes which he clearly committed but was never charged for, were much more serious than the "gotcha" crime of covering up an affair that Clinton was charged for after a long witch-hunt turned up nothing serious.

So, Nixon was never charged with a crime then.

To those who now claim that they only were concerned with Clinton's perjury and not with his "affairs", I give a hearty "BS". Clinton was defamed by Republicans for his affairs long before he was ever charged with perjury. Long long. Surely you won't deny this.

Perhaps my actual words on the subject will help you form an opinion as to my opinion on the subject:

I consider the Clinton affair to have been mildly embarrasing for his conduct and majorly embarrasing for the Republican reaction to his conduct. (post 54)

Impeachment is a political process, and the Clinton impeachment was politically motivated. Had it not been specifically a sex scandal, the Republicans would not have risked such a dog and pony show. The Republican base just loves a good extra-marital sex show. Indignation with a boner, that's the Republicans. (post 69)


That Clinton was impeached had all to do with the identity of the majority party in the House, and next to nothing to do with the crime for which he was impeached. Perjury was the excuse, extra-marital sex and not being Republican was the actual affront. (post 75)

It should not have been Clintons responsibility to stop a witch hunt that he was victim of. Congress served no legitimate role by investigating whether or not the President got a BJ. It was a political stunt, and nothing more. (post 75)

etcetra.

 

[RandFan]

The charges were not BS unless lying under oath is not lying under oath on some topics and not on others.

You may not like the topic, and there is prosecutorial discretion on when to proceed with cases of perjury as well as obstruction.

However, this doesn't make the charges BS. Not-at-all.

It sure as hell does make it BS.

Prosecutors (or representatives with powers to indict or bring charges):

• Have discretion.
• Have fiduciary and ethical responsibility to not use their power for political purpose.

It is the sworn job of a prosecutor not to abuse the office but to use discretion in a way that won't waste resources or the goodwill of the office for political purposes to bring charges on purely technical grounds. Discretion and responsibility were casualties in this instance. In short BS.

 

[RandFan]

Impeachment is a political process, and the Clinton impeachment was politically motivated.

The purpose of impeachment was never meant to be a political tool to usurp authority or deny the party in power of performing its job. It's simply a means to solve a criminal problem without using traditional judicial means. In other words, the purpose was to uncouple political powers from judicial power. That does not make impeachment merely political. Otherwise it would happen routinely.

 

[sarge]

The purpose of impeachment was never meant to be a political tool to usurp authority or deny the party in power of performing its job. It's simply a means to solve a criminal problem without using traditional judicial means. In other words, the purpose was to uncouple political powers from judicial power. That does not make impeachment merely political. Otherwise it would happen routinely.

is: how things are.

meant to be: how things were intended, regardless of how things are.

I said is. In 100% of the impeachment proceedings to date, impeachment has been a purely political process. Impeachment is a political process.

 

[BenBurch]

I think there were some impeachments for cause in the 19th c.

 

[sarge]

I think there were some impeachments for cause in the 19th c.

You are correct. I assumed that we were all talking about Presidential impeachments. As practiced in the US, the impeachment of a sitting President is a political exercise.

 

[hgc]

The purpose of impeachment was never meant to be a political tool to usurp authority or deny the party in power of performing its job. It's simply a means to solve a criminal problem without using traditional judicial means. In other words, the purpose was to uncouple political powers from judicial power. That does not make impeachment merely political. Otherwise it would happen routinely.

If the purpose was never meant to be political, then the mechanism for impeachment is inherently flawed. The constitution gives all the impeachment power, with no avenue for appeal, to Congress. Yes, it says "for high crimes and misdemeanors," but Congress is not the Judicial branch. It has no judicial process (rights of the accused, etc). Impeachment is inherently a political process. Accusers, defenders and the jury are all politicians, acting in their political roles.

That the constitution provides that the Chief Justice of the United States "preside" over the trial is purely ceremonial. There is no law to apply rulings to.

So, sorry to disappoint, but impeachment works exactly as designed. Of course when it comes to presidential impeachment, there are only 3 cases in history (incl the forestalled impeachment of Nixon) to examine.

 

[RandFan]

If the purpose was never meant to be political, then the mechanism for impeachment is inherently flawed. The constitution gives all the impeachment power, with no avenue for appeal, to Congress. Yes, it says "for high crimes and misdemeanors," but Congress is not the Judicial branch. It has no judicial process (rights of the accused, etc). Impeachment is inherently a political process. Accusers, defenders and the jury are all politicians, acting in their political roles.

That the constitution provides that the Chief Justice of the United States "preside" over the trial is purely ceremonial. There is no law to apply rulings to.

So, sorry to disappoint, but impeachment works exactly as designed. Of course when it comes to presidential impeachment, there are only 3 cases in history (incl the forestalled impeachment of Nixon) to examine.

Thanks, I don't doubt that it is abused from time to time. But I think history is in my favor. That it is not used more lends credence to the notion that congress gets it to some degree. I think it largely works as designed.

 

[Tricky]

So, Nixon was never charged with a crime then.

No. He obviously committed the crimes, but he was never charged because he had been pardoned in advance. Personally, I don't believe that exonerates him. Indeed, it is the only major problem I had with President Ford, the only Republican presidential candidate I've ever voted for.

So, Nixon was never charged with a crime then.



Perhaps my actual words on the subject will help you form an opinion as to my opinion on the subject:

I consider the Clinton affair to have been mildly embarrasing for his conduct and majorly embarrasing for the Republican reaction to his conduct. (post 54)

Impeachment is a political process, and the Clinton impeachment was politically motivated. Had it not been specifically a sex scandal, the Republicans would not have risked such a dog and pony show. The Republican base just loves a good extra-marital sex show. Indignation with a boner, that's the Republicans. (post 69)


That Clinton was impeached had all to do with the identity of the majority party in the House, and next to nothing to do with the crime for which he was impeached. Perjury was the excuse, extra-marital sex and not being Republican was the actual affront. (post 75)

It should not have been Clintons responsibility to stop a witch hunt that he was victim of. Congress served no legitimate role by investigating whether or not the President got a BJ. It was a political stunt, and nothing more. (post 75)

etcetra.

Then you aren't one of the "those" that I referred to. There are some here though. However, it is quite clear that some people in this discussion think that being charged with an unimportant crime that was brought on by maneuvering the discussion into the arena of sex is more significant than being uncharged with a crime which was obviously committed, in which the person tried to cover up an attempt to subvert the democratic processes. I realize you are not among them, Sarge.

 

[mhaze]

Had Clinton been tried in a court, with all the protections that implies, you might have a point. Clinton was tried in a political body by politicians for political reasons.

By the way, if we are going to use the terms "prosecute" and "trial" then we must also use the term "aquit" - which is what happened after all. Apparently, the "jury" says that Clinton was "not guilty" of perjury. Indeed, fewer than half of the "jurors" were convinced of his guilt - and 100% of those were Republicans.

The impeachment was completely political, and the crime was sex.

No, you are making stuff up. Respectfully, the "political body" found him not guilty of the charges. But the charges were simply not sex. There just is not any way around this matter. I understand that you'd like to spin it, but I am only looking at the black letter of the proceedings.

That's all that's needed.

 

[tyr_13]

(Shrug) Not much of a hypocrisy, either. No more hypocritical than eating at McDonald's despirte the fact that you publicly declare you are committed to healthy eating. In both cases you can be perfectly honest in your desire to always eat healthy or not have sex before marriage, but simply fail to live up to this ideal.

If you eat at McDonald's three times a day, or have wild sex with strangers every night when single, then... er... well, then you massively enjoy life, but apart from that, you are a hypocrite, becasue it is clear from your behavior that you don't really believe in what you preach. But merely not being perfect in following one's declared ideals is not hypocrisy in itself.

You fail to understand the positions of either woman in these cases then. One can eat healthy, and sometimes have a McDonald's (or other) cheeseburger. That's not hypocrisy at all. One cannot claim that people shouldn't have sex outside of marriage and then have sex outside of marriage, and not have it be hypocrisy. Again, I'm not claiming it's important, but in one case you don't have any hypocrisy, and another you have a failure to live up to an ideal that is at least some from of hypocrisy.

So IF the basic assertions have any factual basis then IF she held a certain moral position and didn't adhere to it THEN she'd be a hypocrite.

That's really important logic.

Your speculation know any bounds?

My speculation knows no bounds? That most certainly is what she advocates now, so speculating that perhaps she also held it in the past isn't exactly beyond the pale. I don't know if she did, and I don't especially care, because either way it doesn't mean much to me.

Your partisan twisting is again, a manifest spectacle.

 

[BenBurch]

You are correct. I assumed that we were all talking about Presidential impeachments. As practiced in the US, the impeachment of a sitting President is a political exercise.

Correct on that. Had Nixon been impeached, that would have been for cause.

Impeachment is very rare even for cause.

 

[sarge]

No, you are making stuff up.

That is demonstrably incorrect - and you almost certainly know it.

Respectfully, the "political body" found him not guilty of the charges.

You introduced the notion that Clinton was subjected to a criminal proceeding, not me. You were mistaken, of course - but if we ignore the obvious and play along with your mischacacterization of the impeachment proceeding, then you must accept that Clinton officially commited no crimes. he is innocent.

But the charges were simply not sex.

No one has claimed they were. It remains true that the charges were based on political motivations having nothing at all to do with real crimes - as evidenced by the political makeup of the "guilty" votes.

There just is not any way around this matter. I understand that you'd like to spin it, but I am only looking at the black letter of the proceedings.

That's all that's needed.

You are ignoring the truth, and your defense is that you are unable to see variations of grey? I see it all the time, but I seldom hear someone actually admit it.

The Clinton investigation and impeachment were clumsy attempts by the Republican party to unseat the sitting President. I don't think it much of an exageration to call it a coup, really. Clinton commited no "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". He had an embarrasing extra-marital affair, and then lied when answering a question he never should have been asked. That is the sum total of all you need know.

 

[RandFan]

That is demonstrably incorrect - and you almost certainly know it.

You introduced the notion that Clinton was subjected to a criminal proceeding, not me. You were mistaken, of course - but if we ignore the obvious and play along with your mischacacterization of the impeachment proceeding, then you must accept that Clinton officially commited no crimes. he is innocent.

No one has claimed they were. It remains true that the charges were based on political motivations having nothing at all to do with real crimes - as evidenced by the political makeup of the "guilty" votes.

You are ignoring the truth, and your defense is that you are unable to see variations of grey? I see it all the time, but I seldom hear someone actually admit it.

The Clinton investigation and impeachment were clumsy attempts by the Republican party to unseat the sitting President. I don't think it much of an exageration to call it a coup, really. Clinton commited no "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". He had an embarrasing extra-marital affair, and then lied when answering a question he never should have been asked. That is the sum total of all you need know.

I'll concede all of these points.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I would argue that hypocrisy is a subset of dishonesty--specifically, being dishonest to or about oneself.

Absolutely.