Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Gingrich, Livingston & Hastert Impeached Clinton for What? [View all]merrily
(45,251 posts)36. Again, read for comprehension. You got all the info any reasonable person
could expect. He lied under oath, with two courts holding he met all three elements you cited above. Morever, there is no question he met all three elements. He does not even claim he did not. He did not surrender his license voluntarily.
If you get can't that after all the above, I can't help you. Or your friend. My bad. I should have seen from the jump facts were going to be irrelevant to both of you. But I am educable and I get that now.. I'm done.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
67 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I didn't pretend shit. I never said they weren't delighted to have grounds to impeach him.
merrily
May 2015
#4
Investigating him and impeaching him are two different things. BTW, they did not even investigate
merrily
May 2015
#49
Jebus. Google. The Court that heard the Paula Jones case held him in contempt for
merrily
May 2015
#11
No, the Jones case was settled because Clinton paid a chunk of cash out of court.
merrily
May 2015
#15
Did you read it? ALL of it? The article mentions reinstatement of the trial, saying
merrily
Jun 2015
#58
STOP Focusing on the impeachment. Two courts of law held him guilty of lying under oath.
merrily
May 2015
#14
Never once denied I said perjury at first. Desperate much? Still ignoring lying under oath, I see.
merrily
May 2015
#50
Again, it met all the elements of perjury. I cannot read anyone's mind to tell you why
merrily
Jun 2015
#52
Sure, Starr just didn't prosecute Clinton for perjury because he wasn't in the mood...or something
Major Nikon
Jun 2015
#53
Both the Paula Jones Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court found all 3 of those things.
merrily
May 2015
#31
No matter what it was, knowing they'd been after him, he sat in front of TV cameras and in
merrily
May 2015
#21
The court found that he had lied to the court while under oath. There is no question of that.
merrily
May 2015
#24
OMG, you're back about five posts ago. I haven't used the word perjury since then.
merrily
May 2015
#26
Um, no you got answers and links. Your trumped up story was the only fart and splutter in the
merrily
May 2015
#29
All three elements you described above were met. So held both the Paula Jones court
merrily
May 2015
#33
So your argument is that Starr didn't prosecute Clinton for perjury because he exercised discretion
Major Nikon
May 2015
#35
Sure he was completely guilty of perjury, but curiously was never so much as indicted
Major Nikon
May 2015
#38
To justify the never ending perpetually expanding expensive witch hunt they had against him
Johonny
May 2015
#34
Clintons approval ratings during the impeachment were higher than St. Ronnie's ever were
Major Nikon
May 2015
#41