I'm seeing a lot of revisionism on DU with regards to Clinton Impeachment

[stevenleser]

Both in threads discussing Edwards cheating, and whether one should listen to Jonathan Turley. I just want to assert how disgusting that effort to impeach Clinton was and to offer any doubters this below link to a letter from more than 430 law professors to congress opposing impeachment.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/petit1.htm#Letter




Full text of letter

The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker
United States House of Representatives


Dear Mr. Speaker:

Did President Clinton commit “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” warranting impeachment under the Constitution? We, the undersigned professors of law, believe that the misconduct alleged in the report of the Independent Counsel, and in the statement of Investigative Counsel David Schippers, does not cross that threshold.

We write neither as Democrats nor as Republicans. Some of us believe that the President has acted disgracefully, some that the Independent Counsel has. This letter has nothing to do with any such judgments. Rather, it expresses the one judgment on which we all agree: that the allegations detailed in the Independent Counsel’s referral and summarized in Counsel Schippers’s statement do not justify presidential impeachment under the Constitution.

No existing judicial precedents bind Congress’s determination of the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” But it is clear that Members of Congress would violate their constitutional responsibilities if they sought to impeach and remove the President for misconduct, even criminal misconduct, that fell short of the high constitutional standard required for impeachment.

The President’s independence from Congress is fundamental to the American structure of government. It is essential to the separation of powers. It is essential to the President’s ability to discharge such constitutional duties as vetoing legislation that he considers contrary to the nation’s interests. And it is essential to governance whenever the White House belongs to a party different from that which controls the Capitol. The lower the threshold for impeachment, the weaker the President. If the President could be removed for any conduct of which Congress disapproved, this fundamental element of our democracy – the President’s independence from Congress – would be destroyed. It is not enough, therefore, that Congress strongly disapprove of the President’s conduct. Under the Constitution, the President cannot be impeached unless he has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Some of the charges raised against the President fall so far short of this high standard that they strain good sense: for example, the charge that the President repeatedly declined to testify voluntarily or pressed a debatable privilege claim that was later judicially rejected. Such litigation “offenses” are not remotely impeachable. With respect, however, to other allegations, careful consideration must be given to the kind of misconduct that renders a President constitutionally unfit to remain in office.

Neither history nor legal definitions provide a precise list of high crimes and misdemeanors. Reasonable people have differed in interpreting these words. We believe that the proper interpretation of the Impeachment Clause must begin by recognizing treason and bribery as core or paradigmatic instances, from which the meaning of “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is to be extrapolated. The constitutional standard for impeachment would be very different if different offenses had been specified. The clause does not read, “Treason, Felony, or other Crime” (as does Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution), so that any violation of a criminal statute would be impeachable. Nor does it read, “Arson, Larceny, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” implying that any serious crime, of whatever nature, would be impeachable. Nor does it read, “Adultery, Fornication, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” implying that any conduct deemed to reveal serious moral lapses might be an impeachable offense.

When a President commits treason, he exercises his executive powers, or uses information obtained by virtue of his executive powers, deliberately to aid an enemy. When a President is bribed, he exercises or offers to exercise his executive powers in exchange for corrupt gain. Both acts involve the criminal exercise of presidential powers, converting those awful powers into an instrument either of enemy interests or of purely personal gain. We believe that the critical, distinctive feature of treason and bribery is grossly derelict exercise of official power (or, in the case of bribery to obtain or retain office, gross criminality in the pursuit of official power). Non-indictable conduct might rise to this level. For example, a President might be properly impeached if, as a result of drunkenness, he recklessly and repeatedly misused executive authority.

Much of the misconduct of which the President is accused does not involve the exercise of executive powers at all. If the President committed perjury regarding his sexual conduct, this perjury involved no exercise of presidential power as such. If he concealed evidence, this misdeed too involved no exercise of executive authority. By contrast, if he sought wrongfully to place someone in a job at the Pentagon, or lied to subordinates hoping they would repeat his false statements, these acts could have involved a wrongful use of presidential influence, but we cannot believe that the President’s alleged conduct of this nature amounts to the grossly derelict exercise of executive power sufficient for impeachment.

Perjury and obstructing justice can without doubt be impeachable offenses. A President who corruptly used the Federal Bureau of Investigation to obstruct an investigation would have criminally exercised his presidential powers. Moreover, covering up a crime furthers or aids the underlying crime. Thus a President who committed perjury to cover up his subordinates’ criminal exercise of executive authority would also have committed an impeachable offense. But making false statements about sexual improprieties is not a sufficient constitutional basis to justify the trial and removal from office of the President of the United States.

It goes without saying that lying under oath is a very serious offense. But even if the House of Representatives had the constitutional authority to impeach for any instance of perjury or obstruction of justice, a responsible House would not exercise this awesome power on the facts alleged in this case. The House’s power to impeach, like a prosecutor’s power to indict, is discretionary. This power must be exercised not for partisan advantage, but only when circumstances genuinely justify the enormous price the nation will pay in governance and stature if its President is put through a long, public, voyeuristic trial. The American people understand this price. They demonstrate the political wisdom that has held the Constitution in place for two centuries when, even after the publication of Mr. Starr’s report, with all its extraordinary revelations, they oppose impeachment for the offenses alleged therein.

We do not say that a “private” crime could never be so heinous as to warrant impeachment. Congress might responsibly take the position that an individual who by the law of the land cannot be permitted to remain at large, need not be permitted to remain President. But if certain crimes such as murder warrant removal of a President from office because of their unspeakable heinousness, the offenses alleged in the Independent Counsel’s report or the Investigative Counsel’s statement are not among them. Short of heinous criminality, impeachment demands convincing evidence of grossly derelict exercise of official authority. In our judgment, Mr. Starr’s report contains no such evidence.

Sincerely,


Richard L. Abel, Connell Professor of Law, UCLA Law School
Alice Abreu, Professor of Law, Temple University School of Law
Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University
Matthew Adler, Assistant Professor, University of Pennsylvania
T. Alex Aleinikoff, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Akhil Reed Amar, Southmayd Professor of Law, Yale University
Alison Grey Anderson, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Mark Anderson, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University
William R. Anderson, Professor of Law, University of Washington
Peter Arenella, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Barbara Allen Babcock, Judge John Crown Professor of Law, Stanford University Law School
Hope Babcock, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
C. Edwin Baker, Nicholas F. Gallicchio Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania
Fletcher N. Baldwin, Sam T. Dell Research Scholar and Professor of Law, University of Florida
Milner S. Ball, Caldwell Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Georgia
Susan Bandes, Professor of Law, DePaul University
William C. Banks, Laura J. and L.Douglas Meredith Professor, Syracuse University
John J. Barcelo III, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of International and Comparative Law, Cornell University
Mark Barenberg, Professor of Law, Columbia University
Stephen R. Barnett, Elizabeth J. Boalt Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley
Katharine Bartlett, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Babette Barton, Adrian A. Kagan Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley
Robert J. Bartow, Laura H. Carnell Professor of Law, Temple University
Robert Batey, Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law
Sara Sun Beale, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Mary Becker, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Peter A. Bell, Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law
Leslie Bender, Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law
Robert Bennett, Professor of Law, Northwestern University College of Law
Tom Berg, Professor of Law, Cumberland Law School, Samford University
Vivian Berger, Nash Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law
Merton C. Bernstein, Walter D. Coles Professor Emeritus, WashingtonUniversity
Louis Bilionis, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
Walker J. Blakely, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School
Susan Low Bloch, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Gregg Bloche, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Cheryl Block, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
Larry E. Blount, Associate Professor of Law, University of Georgia
Grace Ganz Blumberg, Professor of Law, UCLA Law School
John Charles Boger, Henry Brandis Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law
Lloyd Bonfield, Professor of Law, Tulane University
Richard J. Bonnie, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia
Amelia H. Boss, Professor of Law, Temple University
Cynthia Grant Bowman, Professor of Law, Northwestern University
James Boyle, Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University
Kathleen F. Brickey, James Carr Professor of Criminal Jurisprudence, Washington University
Joseph F. Brodley, Frank R. Kenison Scholar-In-Law, Professor of Law and Economics, Boston University
Lissa L. Broome, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
Allan Brotsky, Professor of Law Emeritus, Golden Gate University
Kenneth S. Broun, Henry Brandis Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
Caroline N. Brown, Profesor of Law, University of North Carolina
Darryl Brown, Assistant Professor of Law , University of Dayton School of Law
Rebecca Brown, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University School of Law
Patricia L. Bryan, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
John M. Burkoff, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Scott Burris, Professor of Law, Temple University
Robert Burt, Alexander M. Bickel Professor of Public Law, Yale University
Claudia Burton, Professor of Law, Willamette University College of Law
Peter Byrne, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Burton Caine, Professor of Law, Temple University School of Law
Paulette M. Caldwell, Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
Robert Calhoun, Professor of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law
Evan Caminker, Professor of Law, UCLA
Susan Carle, Assistant Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University
Paul D. Carrington, Harry R. Chadwick, Sr. Professor of Law, Duke University
Barry E. Carter, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Sheryll D. Cashin, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Elizabeth Chambliss, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Denver
Oscar G. Chase, Vice Dean and Professor of Law, New York University
Erwin Chemerinsky, Professor of Law, University of Southern California
Alan Chen, Assistant Professor, University of Denver Law School
Steven Alan Childress, Professor of Law, Tulane University
Gabriel J. Chin, Associate Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati
Sumi Cho, Associate Professor, DePaul University College of Law
Carol Chomsky, Associate Professor of Law, University of Minnesota
Amy L. Chua, Associate Professor of Law, Duke University
Peter M. Cicchino, Assistant Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University
Amy B. Cohen, Professor of Law, Western New England College Law
Stephen Cohen, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Sherman Cohn, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Robert H. Cole, Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California School of Law at Berkeley
Richard Cole, Professor of Law, Western New England College of Law
Doriane Coleman, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Jim Coleman, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Jules Coleman, John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence and Philosophy, Yale University
Malina Coleman, Associate Dean and Associate Professor of Law, University of Akron School of Law
Charles W. Collier, Professor of Law & Affiliate Professor of Philosophy, University of Florida College of Law
Michael Corrado, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
Thomas F. Cotter, Associate Professor of Law, University of Florida
Marion G. Crain, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
Kimberle Crenshaw, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
David B. Cruz, Associate Professor of Law, University of Southern California
Lynn E. Cunningham, Associate Professor of Clinical Law, George Washington University Law School
Noel Cunningham, Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
Vivian Curran, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh
Harlon Dalton, Professor of Law, Yale University
Erin Daly, Associate Professor of Law, Widener University School of Law
Adrienne D. Davis, Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University
Peggy Cooper Davis, Shad Professor of Law, New York University Law School
Charles E. Daye, Henry Brandis Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
Raymond T. Diamond, Professor of Law, Tulane University School of Law
C. Thomas Dienes, Patricia Roberts Harris Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
J. Herbie DiFonzo, Associate Professor of Law, Hofstra University Law School
Robert Dinerstein, Professor and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Washington College of Law, American University
Colin Diver, Dean and Bernard G. Segal Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania
Michael C. Dorf, Vice Dean and Professor of Law, Columbia University
Norman Dorsen, Frederick I. and Grace A. Professor of Law, New York University Law School
Nancy E. Dowd, Professor of Law, University of Florida College of Law
Rochelle Dreyfuss, Professor of Law, New York University Law School
Robert Drinan, S.J., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Earl C. Dudley, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Virginia
Martha Grace Duncan, Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law
Melvyn R. Durschlag, Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve School of Law
Ronald Dworkin, Professor of Law, New York University Law School
Allen K. Easley, Associate Dean & Professor of Law, Washburn Law School
Thomas A. Eaton, J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law, University of Georgia
Lauren Edelman, Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley
Peter Edelman, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Nancy S. Ehrenreich, Associate Professor of Law, University of Denver
Christopher L. Eisgruber, Professor of Law, New York University Law School
Richard A. Ellison, Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law
John Hart Ely, Richard A. Hausler Professor of Law, University of Miami
Susan Estrich, Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science, University of Southern California
Daniel Farber, Henry J. Fletcher Professor of Law, University of Minnesota
Chai Feldblum, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Heidi Li Feldman, Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Martha L. Fineman, Maurice T. Moore Professor of Law, Columbia University
George Fisher, Associate Professor of Law, Stanford University
Michael A. Fitts, Robert G. Fuller, Jr. Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania
Martin Flaherty, Professor of Law, Fordham University Law School
James E. Fleming, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law
George P. Fletcher, Cardozo Professor of Jurisprudence, Columbia University
H. Miles Foy, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University
Susan F. French, Professor of Law, UCLA Law School
Eric T. Freyfrogle, Max L. Rowe Professor of Law, University of Illinois
Philip P. Frickey, Faegre & Benson Professor of Law, University of Minnesota
Barbara H. Fried, Professor of Law, Stanford University
Martin L. Fried, Crandall Melvin Professor of Law, Syracuse University
Lawrence Frolik, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh Law School
Theresa Gabaldon, Professor of Law and Carville Dickenson Benson Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
Mary Ellen Gale, Professor of Law, Whittier Law School
James A. Gardner, Professor of Law, Western New England College
David Garland, Professor of Law, New York University Law School
Laura N. Gasaway, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
S. Elizabeth Gibson, Burton Craige Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law
Theresa Glennon, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University School of Law
Christopher Gobert, Visiting Professor of Law, Tulane University Law School
Thomas M. Goetzi, Professor of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law
Robert Kogod Goldman, Louis C. James Scholar and Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University
Richard I. Goldsmith, Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law
Amy Goldstein, Professor of Law, Western New England College
David B. Goldstein, Assistant Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law
Joel Goldstein, Associate Professor of Law, St. Louis University School of Law
Toby Golick, Clinical Professor and Director, Cardozo School of Law
Oliver Goodenough, Professor of Law, Vermont School of Law
Frank L. Goodman, Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania
Robert Gordon, Fred A. Johnston Professor of Law, Yale University
Robert A. Gorman, Kenneth W. Gemmill Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Larry Gostin, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Michael Gottesman, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Nathan A Gozansky, Professor of Law and Associate Dean, Emory University
Frank P. Grad, Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia University
Jack Greenberg, Professor of Law, Columbia University Law School
Abner S. Greene, Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University
Eugene Gressman, Willliam Rand Kenan, Jr. Professor of Law Emeritus, University of North Carolina Law School
Thomas C. Grey, Nathan Bowman Sweitzer and Marie B. Sweitzer Professor of Law, Stanford University Law School
Stephen Griffin, Professor of Law, Tulane University
Samuel R. Gross, Professor of Law, University of Michigan
Joanna L. Grossman, Associate Professor of Law, Tulane University
Susan Grover, Associate Professor of Law, William and Mary College of Law
Isabelle R. Gunning, Professor of Law, Southwestern School of Law
Egon Guttman, Levitt Memorial Scholar Professor of Law, American University
Paul Haagan, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Phoebe Haddon, Professor of Law, Temple University Law School
Mark M. Hager, Professor of Law, American University
Mark A. Hall, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University
Louise Halper, Associate Professor of Law, Washington & Lee University
Joel Handler, Richard C. Maxwell Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Ian Haney-Lopez, Acting Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley
Henry Hansmann, Sam Harris Professor of Law, Yale University
Patrick Hardin, Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of Law
Michael Harper, Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
George C. Harris, Associate Professor, University of Utah College of Law
Jeffrey L. Harrison, Chesterfield Smith Professor of Law, University of Florida
William Burnett Harvey, Professor of Law Emeritus, Boston University
Thomas Lee Hazen, Cary C. Boshamer Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
Stanley D. Henderson, F.D.G. Ribble Professor of Law, University of Virginia
Louis Henkin, Professor of Law, Columbia University Law School
Helen Hershkoff, Associate Professor of Law, New York University School
Randy Hertz, Professor of Clinical Law, New York University Law School
Michael Herz, Professor of Law, Cardozo School of Law
Stephen Hetcher, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School
Richard Hiers, Professor of Religion & Affiliate Professor of Law, University of Florida
Robert Hillman, Edwin H. Woodruff Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Rick Hills, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Kenneth Hirsch, Professor of Law, Duquesne University School of Law
Joan Heifetz Hollinger, Visiting Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley
Donald T. Hornstein, Reef Ivey II Research Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
Cooley Howarth, Associate Professor of Law, University of Dayton School of Law
Joan Howarth, Professor of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law
Joyce A. Hughes, Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
Kyron Huigens, Assistant Professor of Law, Cardozo School of Law
Marina Hsieh, Acting Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley
Eric Janus, Professor of Law, William Mitchell College of Law
William C. Jones, Charles F. Nagel Emeritus Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law
Emma Jordan, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Thomas M. Jorde, Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley
Sanford H. Kadish, Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California at Berkeley
Robert A. Kagan, Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California at Berkeley
Dan Kahan, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Faith Stevelman Kahn, Professor of Corporations and Business Law, New York Law School
David Kairys, Professor of Law, Temple University School of Law
Bill L. Kaplin, Professor of Law, Catholic University Law School
Kenneth Karst, David G. Price & Dallas P. Price Professor of Law, UCLA
Blair S. Kauffman, Professor of Law, Yale University
Mark Kelman, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Stanford University
Nancy Kenderdine, Professor of Law, Oklahoma City University School of Law
Robert B. Kent, Professor of Law Emeritus, Cornell University School of Law
John M. Kernochan, Nash Professor Emeritus of Law, Columiba University
Kits Kinports, Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law
Lawrence P. King, Charles Seligson Professor of Law, New York University
Lewis A. Kornhauser, Professor of Law, New York University
Lawrence Kramer, Professor of Law, New York University
Kenneth Kreiling, Professor of Law, Vermont School of Law
Seth F. Kreimer, Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania
Robert R. Kuehn, Professor of Clinical Law, Tulane University
Paul M. Kurtz, J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law, University of Georgia
D. Bruce La Pierre, Professor of Law, Washington University
Pnina Lahav, Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
Sylvia A. Law, Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law, Medicine and Psychiatry, New York University Law School
Charles Lawrence, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Frederick M. Lawrence, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
Michael Lawrence, Professor of Law, Detroit College of Law at Michigan State University
Douglas Laycock, Alice McKean Young Regents Chair and Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law
Richard Lazarus, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Robert N. Leaval, Alumni Professor of Law (Emeritus), University of Georgia
Stephen H. Legomsky, Nagel Professor of Internationald & Comparative Law, Washington University
Lisa G. Lerman, Associate Professor and Director, Law and Public Policy Program, Catholic University Law School
Howard Lesnick, Jefferson B. Fordham Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania
Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law, Harvard University Law School
Ronald M. Levin, Professor of Law, Washington University
Neil M. Levy, Professor of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law
Lyrissa Lidsky, Associate Professsor of Law, University of Florida College of Law
Laura Little, Professor of Law, Temple University School of Law
Arnold H. Loewy, Graham Kenan Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
Sara Jane Love, Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law
David Luban, Frederick J. Haas Professor of Law & Ethics, Georgetown University Law Center
Jeffrey S. Lubbers, Visiting Associate Professor, Washington College of Law, American University
William V. Luneberg, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Ira C. Lupu, Louis Harkey Mayo Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
Robert Lusardi, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Western New England
Gerald E. Lynch, Paul J. Kellner Professor of Law, Columbia University
Holly Maguigan, Professor of Clinical Law, New York University Law School
Pedro A. Malavet, Assistant Professor, University of Florida College of Law
Bruce H. Mann, Professor of Law and History, University of Pennsylvania
Burke Marshall, Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor Emeritus, Yale University
Lawrence C. Marshall, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Law School
William Marshall, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Law School
Elena Marty-Nelson, Professor of Law, Nova Southeastern University
Jerry Mashaw, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale University
Richard A. Matasar, Dean & Levin, Mabie & Levin Professor of Law, University of Florida College of Law
Mari Matsuda, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Diane Mazur, Associate Professor of Law, University of Florida College of Law
Richard McAdams, Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
Patricia A. McCoy, Associate Professor of Law, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University
Thomas R. McCoy, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School
Paul R. McDaniel, Professor of Law, New York University Law School
William McGovern, Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA Law School
Joan S. Meier, Professor Clinical Law, George Washington University
Peter Menell, Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley
Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Vanessa Mercer, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Pace University
Richard Merrill, Daniel Caplin Professor of Law, University of Virginia
Michael J. Meurer, Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
Philip Meyer, Professor of Law, Vermont School of Law
Binney Miller, Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University
Marc L. Miller, Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law
Martha Minow, Professor of Law, Harvard University School of Law
Wallace J. Mlyniec, Lupo-Ricci Professor of Law and Associate Dean, Georgetown University Law Center
Nancy Morawetz, Professor of Clinical Law, New York University Law School
Denise C. Morgan, Associate Professor, New York Law School
Muriel Morisey, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University School of Law
Robert Mosteller, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Arthur W. Murphy, Professor Emeritus of Law, Columbia University Law School
Wiliam P. Murphy, Henry Brandis Professor of Law Emeritus, University of North Carolina
Eleanor Myers, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Law School
Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy and Law, New York University
Winston P. Nagen, Professor of Law, University of Florida College of Law
Gerald L. Neuman, Herbert Wechsler Professor of Federal Jurisprudence, Columbia University Law School
Kenneth Nunn, Professor of Law, University of Florida College of Law
John E. Nowak, David C. Baum Professor of Law, University of Illinois
Robert L. Oakley, Professor of Law and Director of the Law Library, Georgetown University Law Center
Michael Oberst, Professor of Law, University of Florida College of Law
Edward D. Ohlbaum, Professor of Law and Director of Clinical Legal Education, Temple University Law School
James Oldham, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Frances Olsen, Overseas Fellow, Churchill College, Cambridge Professor of Law, UCLA
Terry A. O’Neill, Associate Professor, Tulane University School of Law
Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law, Vermont School of Law
John Parry, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Dan Partan, R. Gordon Butler Scholar-in-Law and Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
Elizabeth H. Patterson, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
L. Ray Patterson, Pope Brock Professor of Law, University of Georgia
Stephen L. Pepper, Professor of Law, University of Denver School of Law
Juan F. Perea, Professor of Law, University of Florida College of Law
Donald Peters, Professor of Law, University of Florida College of Law
Nancy D. Polikoff, Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University
Daniel H. Pollitt, Graham Kenan Professor of Law Emeritus, University of North Carolina
Andrew F. Popper, Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University
Robert Post, Alexander F. & May T. Morrison Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley
J. L. Pottenger, Nathan Baker Clinical Professor and Director, Yale University
Charles R.P. Pouncy, Associate Professor of Law, University of Florida
Catherine Powell, Associate Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Walter Probert, Professor of Law, University of Florida College of Law
E. Ann Puckett, Professor of Law and Director of Law Library, University of Georgia School of Law
James C. Quarles, Professor of Law, University of Florida College of Law
Robert L. Rabin, Professor of Law, A. Calder Mackay Professor of Law, Stanford University Law School
Andrzej Rapaczynski, Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law
Alice A. Ratliff, Clinical Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
Mitt Regan, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Joel R. Reidenberg, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law
Arnold W. Reitze, Jr., J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law, George Washington University Law School
John Reitz, Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law
Jeffrey T. Renz, Assistant Professor, University of Montana School of Law
Judith Resnik, Arthur L. Liman Professor, Yale University
Wilhelmina M. Reuben-Cooke, Professor of Law, Syracuse University
Paula R. Rhodes, Associate Professor, University of Denver College of Law
William D. Rich, Associate Professor of Law, University of Akron
David A.J. Richards, Edwin J. Webb Professor of Law, New York University
Ira P. Robbins, Barnard T. WelshScholar and Professor of Law and Justice, Washington College of Law, American University
Gary R. Roberts, Professor of Law, Tulane University
John C. Roberts, Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus, DePaul University
Florence Wagman Roisman, Associate Professor, Indiana University
Celina Romany, Professor of Law, City University of New York
Michael Rooke-Ley, Visiting Professor of Law, Willamette University
Carol Rose, Gordon Bradford Tweedy Professor of Law, Yale University
Charles P. Rose, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University
Jeffrey Rosen, Associate Professor of Law, George Washington University
Richard Rosen, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
Michel Rosenfeld, Justice Sidney L. Robins Professor of Human Rights, Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University
Arthur Rosett, Professor of Law, UCLA Law School
Stephen F. Ross, Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law
Susan Deller Ross, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Paul Rothstein, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Laura Rovner, Assistant Professor of Law, Syracuse University School of Law
Tom Rowe, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Jed Rubenfeld, Professor of Law, Yale University Law School
Peter J. Rubin, Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Sharon Rush, Irving Cypen Professor of Law, University of Florida
Michael Rusted, Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School
Susan Rutberg, Associate Professor, Golden Gate University School of Law
George Rutherglen, O.M. Vicars Professor of Law, University of Virginia
Stephen A. Saltzburg, Howrey Professor of Trial Advocacy, Litigation and Professional Responsibility, George Washington University Law School
Kenneth Salzberg, Associate Professor of Law, Hamline University
Leslie Salzman, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cardozo School of Law
Pam Samuelson, Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley
Richard H. Sander, Professor of Law, UCLA
Thomas Sargentich, Professor of Law, Washington School of Law, American University
Gail Sassnett, Associate Dean for Students, University of Florida College of Law
Shelley Ross Saxer, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine School of Law
Robert Schapiro, Associate Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law
Barbara Schatz, Clinical Professor of Law, Columbia University Law School
Kim L. Scheppele, Professor of Law, Political Science, and Sociology, University of Pennsylvania
Philip Schrag, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Christopher Schroeder, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Vicki Schultz, Professor of Law, Yale University
Jane Schukoske, Associate Professor of Law, University of Baltimore
Joshua I. Schwartz, Professor of Law, George Washington University
Helen Scott, Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
David J. Seipp, Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
Michael Selmi, Associate Professor, George Washington Law School
Peter M. Shane, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Howard Shelanski, Acting Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley
Suzanna Sherry, Earl R. Larson Professor of Law, University of Minnesota
David F. Shores, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University
Marjorie M. Shultz, Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley
Reva Siegel, Professor of Law, Yale University Law School
John Simon, Augustus Lines Professor of Law, Yale University
Eric S. Sirulnik, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
Jerome H. Skolnick, Claire Clements Dean’s Professor Emeritus, University of California Berkeley; now Professor of Law, New York University
Abbe Smith, Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Robert Solomon, Clinical Professor of Law, Yale University
Jane M. Spinak, Edward Ross Aranow Clinical Professor of Law, Columbia University Law School
Theodore St. Antoine, Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan
Barbara Stark, Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of Law
Carol S. Steiker, Professor of Law, Harvard University Law School
Gregory M. Stein, Associate Professor of Law, University of Tennessee
Henry Steiner, Jeremiah Smith, Jr. Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
John-Mark Stensvaag, Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law
Pamela J. Stephens, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School
Marc Stickgold, Professor of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law
Geoffrey R. Stone, Harry Kalven, Jr. Dist. Serv. Professor & Provost, University of Chicago Law School
Kelly Strader, Professor of Law, Southwestern School of Law
Peter L. Strauss, Betts Professor of Law, Columbia University Law School
Harry Subin, Professor of Law, New York University Law School
Allen Sultan, Professor of Law, University of Dayton
Cass Sunstein, Karl Llewelyn Professor of Jurisprudence, University of Chicago
Eleanor Swift, Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley
Nina W. Tarr, Professor of Law, University of Illinois School of Law
Grace W. “Betty” Taylor, Clarence J. TeSelle Professor of Law and Director of the Legal Information Center, University of Florida College of Law
Kendall Thomas, Professor of Law, Columbia University Law School
Karen Tokarz, Professor and Director of Clinical Education, Washington University
Laurence H. Tribe, Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard University
William Turnier, Willie Person Mangum Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
Mary Poe Twitchell, Professor of Law, University of Florida College of Law
Laura Underkuffler, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Frank K. Upham, Professor of Law, New York University Law School
Richard Uvillar, Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law
Francisco Valdes, Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law
Joan Vogel, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School
Valorie K. Vojdik, Assistant Professor of Law, Western New England College
Letti Volpp, Assistant Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University
Heathcote W. Wales, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Camilla E. Watson, Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law
Jonathan Weinberg, Associate Professor of Law, Wayne State University
Edith Brown Weiss, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Charles D. Weisselberg, Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley
Richard Wellman, Alston Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Georgia
Robin West, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Leila Sadat Wexler, Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law
Stephanie M. Wildman, Visiting Professor of Law, Santa Clara School of Law
Wendy Williams, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
John P. Wilson, Professor of Law and former Dean, Golden Gate University
Richard J. Wilson, Professor of Law, American University
James L.Winokur, Professor of Law, University of Denver
Stephen Wizner, Willliam O. Douglas Clinical Professor, Yale University
Danaya Wright, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Florida
Ronald F. Wright, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University
Arthur D. Wolf, Professor of Law, Western New England College
Charles M.Yablon, Professor of Law, Cardozo School of Law
Diane Zimmerman, Professor of Law, New York University Law School
Franklin Zimring, William G. Simon Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley
Benjamin C. Zipursky, Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University

We received word from the following professors slightly too late to include them in the original letter, but since they wished to sign, we have added this post-script.


James F. Bailey, III, Professor of Law, Indiana University
David E. Feller, Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley
Paul J. Galanti, Professor of Law, Indiana University
Howard A. Glickstein, Dean and Professor of Law, Touro Law Center
Alvin Goldman, Dorothy Salmon Professor of Law, University of Kentucky
Steven P. Grossman, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore
Eileen Kaufman, Vice Dean & Professor of Law, Touro Law Center
Richard Klein, Professor of Law, Touro Law Center
Burt Neuborne, Professor of Law, New York University
Harold Norris, Professor of Law, Detroit College of Law, Michigan State
Carlton J. Snow, Professor of Law, Willamette University
June Starr, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University
Roderick Surratt, Professor of Law, Syracuse University
James W. Torke, Professor of Law, University of Indiana

Note: Institutional affiliations for purposes of identification only

[ShortnFiery]

1. OMG! Does seemingly every damn issue have to be twisted back to Bill Clinton?

ENOUGH already! He's done, stick a fork in his image and move the hell on. :shrug:

[PBS Poll-435]

20. Cuz he is cute and married to somebody important

:hide:

[Jakes Progress]

140. OMG! Does your knee hurt?

[applegrove]

2. Wow. How many people signed that letter?

[stevenleser]

18. 430

Four Hundred and Thirty. ;-)

[applegrove]

156. Yes I saw that. It was more of an exclamation. Amazing. Too bad the DU wasn't

around during the impeachment.

[stevenleser]

161. Oh, I know that you knew, I was going along with the exclamation.

It's a huge number. If you want to make the argument that there is a legitimate legal opinion in the other direction, you need to overcome this somehow. I say you can't.

[applegrove]

162. It was a witchhunt. Thankfullly they lost the impeaching.

[stevenleser]

168. Amen brother/sister

:toast:

:hug:

[Thothmes]

202. Rather a politically motivated hatchet job.

[Hanse]

3. Yes, but how many of those elitist uppity law professors are regular guests on cable news?

[AtomicKitten]

4. Impeachment was overkill. Censure was more appropriate.

I never agreed with Jonathan Turley on Clinton's impeachment, however, that doesn't mean every opinion he renders from that point on should be deemed suspect. I happen to agree with Turley on torture.

[Jennicut]

6. Exactly. The main thing I don't like about Turley is his hanging around Ron Paul...yuck

But he makes very good points on torture.

[AtomicKitten]

11. I've never gotten the hang of the petit jihads around here.

I may never forgive the Clintons for their behavior during the primaries, but that's apparently verboten around here. On the other hand, Prof Turley was hyperbolic in his opinion regarding Clinton's impeachment and he cannot be endured around here for that. Go figure.

[Jennicut]

15. Well, I wasn't a Clinton fan in the primaries but did think the impeachment was ridiculous

Clinton was the first President I ever voted for and I thought he was a good one at times. Impeaching him over sex and even lying about sex of all things was stupid. I am not Turley's biggest fan but he is correct. Maybe some don't like him because he is so anal? I don't know. But torture is torture and it needs to be prosecuted and pressure needs to stay on the WH and the AG.

[AtomicKitten]

16. I appreciate Turley's unyielding position on torture.

Being squishy on torture undermines our credibility as a nation. I believe in the rule of law and that the United States is obligated by federal law, the Constitution, and International Law to prosecute.

And so while some here seem to want Prof Turley to STFU on torture, count me among those cheering him on every step of the way.

[karynnj]

104. Like the letter, Democratic Senators found it did not reach the level of high crimes and misdemeanor

Most did speak of things that Clinton did that were unethical and even against the law. You can't lie under oath and you can not suborn witnesses. Clinton helping Bettie Currie "remember" right before she testified is pretty bad.

[stevenleser]

21. Turley was Beyond Hyperbolic, and he bears indirect responsibility for torture imho

he was a willing tool of the GOP to bring down a Democratic President simply because he had a (D) by his name. That effort GAVE us an election close enough for GWB to steal and thus indirectly gave us the Patriot Act, Iraq, Torture, etc., etc.

Turley is all up in arms about a situation that he enabled through his partisan attacks on Clinton. Let's all not forget what got us here. Without impeachment, Al Gore is the 43rd President of the United States by a landslide. Those who pushed the impeachment argument forward have a huge responsibility for what followed.

[ShortnFiery]

26. Yes, our soldiers/CIA agents TORTURING and MURDERING dozens of detainees is just so messy

of a problem. Let's not trouble our beautiful minds with the likes of scummy WAR CRIMES done in our name? :crazy:

Bill Clinton was a horny megalomaniac who thought he could have sex with A SUBORDINATE with no consequence. He shouldn't of been impeached because ANYONE with honor and love for our nation above ambitions would have resigned.

[stevenleser]

29. Which Turley enabled by helping Bush get the White House

Everyone who pushed for Clinton's impeachment enabled Bush coming to power. So, spare me the self-righteous crap until you accept the role the person you are defending had in making it all happen.

[AtomicKitten]

28. What you call "partisan attacks" was Turley upholding his interpretation of the rule of law.

I already said I disagreed with impeachment and feel censure was the proper remedy. But for you to extrapolate and blame Turley for all that followed is ludicrous.

In that vein, it could be fairly claimed that had Bill Clinton kept it in his pants, the aftermath would not have occurred. If Bill Clinton had told the truth or pulled up his socks and resigned, Al Gore would have been president.

DU has this inherent protectionism of all things Clinton. Bill Clinton is responsible for what Bill Clinton did.

[stevenleser]

31. Check my OP again. The opinion of the legal community was decidedly one sided. His opinion was not

law based, it was political. There is no basis in law for his argument. 430 law professors in my OP say so. What backup do you or Turley have compared to that?

[ShortnFiery]

32. There's more than 430 law professors in the USA so PERHAPS more than a few

may have interpreted the law in line with Professor Turley? So no, I don't think it was "political."

The only person who ultimately deserves BLAME for Clinton's Impeachment is BILL CLINTON himself.

Bubba was not "the victim" but instrumental in trashing his own moral character.

[stevenleser]

34. Links please. My evidence is here. Where is yours? (n/1)

[ShortnFiery]

43. Your evidence is not all inclusive and you know it. Sorry, Bill Clinton was not "a God"

but a mere mortal who may suffer from both megalomania as well as sexual addiction. To me, no matter how charming and high the IQ, moral bankrupt behaviors don't cut it for me when selecting a National Leader. :(

[stevenleser]

48. Then provide a link. I provided one. If you can't, then you lose the argument. Its that simple

My evidence is here. Where is yours?

[AtomicKitten]

35. 430 signed the letter in the OP specifically regarding impeachment as remedy.

More signed a letter protesting Bush v. Gore. That does not mean there does not exist legal opinion on the opposite side of either of these issues. That is the essence of the opinion part of "legal opinion."

[stevenleser]

36. So provide links of the professors who supported the other side. (n/t)

[AtomicKitten]

38. Is your Google broken?

Getting your knickers in a twist over this is exactly what I referred to above regarding the inherent protectionism of all things Clinton. Suffice to say and I reiterate, Bill Clinton is responsible for what Bill Clinton did.

Your argument is emotional and I'm not interested in participating in this conversation anymore.

[stevenleser]

47. So, you want me to provide the research for your side of the argument as well? No thanks

that's your job.

[ShortnFiery]

39. You know that Constitutional Scholars of high regard often don't see eye to eye.

I could make the same claim of your cute letter, i.e., they are partisan and have gleaned favors (or expect future gifts) from the Democratic Party. :shrug:

[stevenleser]

50. Except I provided a link with 430 experts in the field of which we are discussing. Where is YOUR

backup?

[karynnj]

109. Your letter doesn't prove that at all

If the RW gets 430 law professors on its side to say - for instance - that Roe vs Wade is unconstitutional - would it be so?

That is in essence a petition signed only by people who disagreed with impeachment - you can't say anything from it about the split in the legal community.

[Uzybone]

151. +100000

[bvar22]

153. Blaming Turley for Bill Clinton's "indescretions"...

OR the Republican partisan witch hunt is twisted.
These things would have happened with or without Turley.
Turley did NOT cause the election of George Bush.

I did not agree with Turley, but his actual impact was negligible.
In THIS case (War Crimes & Torture), Turley is SPOT ON.

Those attempting to marginalize Turley because of an opinion he held in the last century are helping the War Criminals, and making excuses for the Democratic Party to escape its DUTY.

[midnight]

211. I have just become aware of turley recently, but we have known

for some time that the election was stolen. Remember that AL Gore won. We have just chosen to allow a coup to occure.

[emilyg]

5. kick

[The Magistrate]

7. An Excellent Summary Of The Question, Sir

And an indication of what sound legal judgement on serious matters looks like.

[TexasObserver]

74. Don't pay the ransom! He escaped!!

Welcome back, old timer. I hope all is well with you.

[chollybocker]

8. I'm lost at "The Honorable Newt Gingrich."

He holds no office, other than in his own imagination.

[Baby Snooks]

22. They're all "honorable" after they leave office...

And more of them should do just that.

[polmaven]

175. He was Speaker of the House

when the letter was written. "The Honorable" was the correct address.

[question everything]

9. I don't listen to Turley. What did he say? (nt)

[Senator]

17. What needs to be said about torture prosecution. nt

[question everything]

194. What's that got to do with the Clinton impeachment? (nt)

[Senator]

201. It was then that Turley came to wider public attention.

He was strongly pro-impeachment and consequently many are dismissing his current opinions about Obama's failure to deal with torture and war crimes properly -- even though he has spent the past several years being strongly anti-bushcheney on torture, illegal spying, and other abuses.

--

[question everything]

215. Thank you. I was not aware of this

When I used to watch Olbermann - not any more - I respected the way he would present complicated Constitutional issues.

I wonder whether he still holds the same opinion about the Clinton impeachment.

Still, anyone should be evaluated on current opinions, not on past ones.

[autorank]

10. Coup d'etat by a bunch of thugs

That's the nature of the Clinton impeachment.

When it looked like Clinton might go for it with some social programs, returning to the early spirit of
his administration, it was time to bring him down.

The Spitzer sex scandal was just Clinton writ small.

The people made it abundantly clear that they thought it was a crock, a profoundly insincere effort.
This interpretation was never put forth by the corporate media because their owners had lost so badly.

I stopped purchasing the Washington Post the day Congress published the detailed allegations or
descriptions. It was pornography, not the acts but the sharing of those in print. They are a
disgusting collection of yellow journalists.

It is helpful to look back and see mistakes. I'm far less interested in Clinton's sex life than I
am in a party that tantrums non stop with the support of the press to stand in the way of any
progress the citizens at large may see.

I also think that the real issue to examine about the Clinton years is the full tilt embargo against
Iraq, which killed so many innocents. That was wrong.

But impeachment -- a total load.

[ShortnFiery]

12. Yes, it was a trumped up farce but THINK about the fact that Clinton's ego would not permit him

to do the BEST thing for his beloved Country, i.e., resign and let President Gore take the Presidency.

Clinton was so damn arrogant that, as it turned out, it made it EVEN EASIER for the GOP to circumvent the law after the Supreme Court handed Bush the election.

No, Clinton should not have been impeached but dammit, you can't blame "the other women" like so many people are wont to do.

Both Clinton and Spitzer have moral flaws that PALE in comparison to TORTURE AND MURDER.

However, and this is BIG - Our neurotic country is sexually immature and dumbed down by the M$M to such an point that such actions are all important. Knowing this, and he did, Clinton - IF he truly LOVED his country as much as himself, would have tendered his resignation.

My point: Clinton was far from "an innocent" ... his lack of control help FUEL the right-wing's nutty self-righteous hatred.

Clinton was NOT the hapless victim but "a participant" in his own destruction of character and set-up "the potential" for GOP sponsored IMMORALITY (torture/war/corporate welfare) of our Nation in far far more egregious ways.

[NYC Liberal]

66. Oh jesus christ

Why should Clinton have resigned, when his highest approval ratings were during "scandal" cooked up by the GOP and the right-wingers, solely to get back at the Democrats for Nixon's resignation? You do realize that's the only reason why the right wingers gave a shit, right? It had NOTHING to do with sex or lying or anything else.

Rep. Hyde Reflects on 30 Years of Office
By Andy Shaw
Friday 22 April 2005

...

The veteran republican is also admitting for the first time that the impeachment of Clinton may have been in part political revenge against the democrats for the impeachment proceedings against GOP President Richard Nixon 25 years earlier. *

"Was this pay back?" asked Andy Shaw.

"I can't say it wasn't. But I also thought that the Republican Party should stand for something, and if we walked away from this, no matter how difficult, we could be accused of shirking our duty," said Hyde.

http://www.cwalocal4250.org/politicalaction/binarydata/Hyde%20Payback.pdf

He didn't love his country because he didn't resign? What a crock of shit.

"set-up "the potential" for GOP sponsored IMMORALITY (torture/war/corporate welfare) of our Nation in far far more egregious ways" -- Clinton set up the potential for Bush's crimes? Again, bullshit. Clinton was massively popular all throughout the election in 2000. Bush and the Republicans STOLE the election with the help of the governor of Florida (aka, his brother, conveniently), the Florida Secretary of State (aka, co-chair of Bush's Florida campaign and RNC delegate), and a corrupt Supreme Court which completed the coup by illegally installing him.

All of this had nothing to do with Clinton. If anything, it wouldn't have been so close had Gore *NOT* shied away from (hugely popular) Bill Clinton.

Oh well, it's all Clinton's fault I guess...right?

[ShortnFiery]

67. He should of resigned because HE KNEW that it would paralyze the running of our Nation.

Then to add insult to injury he lied under oath.

You haven't forgot that THE SEX he had was with A SUBORDINATE?

Anyone who truly placed the welfare of Our Nation over his own personal ambitions would have RESIGNED.

[NYC Liberal]

68. "It" didn't "paralyze the running of our nation"

The Republican witch hunt did.

Obviously the COUNTRY thought that's exactly what it was and supported Clinton all the more during it.

Again, you apparently think the reason the Republicans went on with all this crap, that the reason why we had hearings and impeachment and the like, is because of "THE SEX he had."

You're wrong. The reason for it was revenge for Nixon. Openly stated as such by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde (R). If it wasn't an affair, it would have been something else. Oh wait. It WAS something else!

Whitewater, FBI Filegate, Socks the Cat's fanmail!! -- the Christmas card list, Vince Foster's suicide ("murder"), and on and on. Clinton could have sat his ass at the Oval Office desk for 8 years, not moved from the chair, and worked nonstop around the clock, and the Republicans would have impeached him for working TOO much.

[ShortnFiery]

69. Again, the person TO BLAME for Bill Clinton being Impeached - Survey Says! = Bill Clinton.

And yes, he knew that all his continuing obfuscations would serve to PARALYZE the nation.

Or do I have it wrong: Did the GOP make poor victim, one each, Bill Clinton, grab a subordinate's ass in the Oval Office and then subsequently LIE about it UNDER OATH? :crazy:

[NYC Liberal]

71. LOL! The PEOPLE to blame are ... the Republicans!

Survey says: Republicans started the witch hunts before Clinton even got into office.
Survey says: Republicans tried nonstop, desperately, to find something that would stick.
Survey says: Republicans tried Whitewater. They failed.
Survey says: Republicans tried investigating the Clintons' cat. They failed again.
Survey says: Republicans tried investigating FBI Filegate. They failed yet again.
Survey says: Republicans tried investigating Clinton's Christmas cards. Can you guess what happened? Oh yeah, they failed!
Survey says: Republicans then dug up an affair Clinton had had, turned it into the crime of the century and worthy of over 2 years of investigations.
Survey says: It was beyond insane to spend millions of dollars and years investigating a blowjob, but that's what the (you guessed it) REPUBLICANS did!
Survey says: Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee Henry Hyde admitted, openly, that this was all revenge for what happened to Nixon. Not because Clinton did anything wrong.

Now, the Survey has a few questions for YOU!

Question #1: Was it worth spending 2 years and millions of dollars investigating a consensual affair?

Question #2: Who initiated these investigations?

Thanks for taking time to fill out this very brief survey.

[ShortnFiery]

84. Denial, not unlike a smitten fan of a celebrity. Nobody made Clinton LIE under oath.

Regardless of how he got there, the infidelity that led to all his lies and obfuscations was ALL on HIM.

Bill Clinton's ego may have been the reason that we were cursed with Dubya instead of being blessed with a President Al (Gore).

To Bill Clinton and his adorers, any misfortune is ALWAYS "everybody else's fault." :(

[wyldwolf]

102. what lie?

[Jakes Progress]

139. Now now,

You are asking something that would actually require the poster to know what happened rather than versions of MSM twisted through a screen of time and innuendo.

[wyldwolf]

142. with a hefty dose of Hannitized "facts."

[polmaven]

173. Thank you, wyldwolf...

I was just about to ask the same question. There was no lie.

[Jakes Progress]

182. But, but. billoreally said there was. nt

[NYC Liberal]

149. How could he be the reason we got Bush, when he had some of the highest

approval ratings in history for a 2nd term president?

If anything, it was his LACK of involvement in the campaign that made things as close as they were! Had he been involved, it wouldn't have been.

Regardless of how he got there, the infidelity that led to all his lies and obfuscations was ALL on HIM

"Regardless"? ... um, that's the whole crux of the issue! The fact is that he had an affair to be sure, but: The issue is spending 2 years and millions of dollars investigating the affair -- something the REPUBLICANS did -- not the affair itself. Since we could have easily just found out about the affair without wasting all that time and money!

Nobody made Clinton LIE under oath.

Nobody made the Republicans spend years and millions of dollars investigating a blowjob. Period.

To Bill Clinton and his adorers, any misfortune is ALWAYS "everybody else's fault."

And to the anti-Clinton crowd, spending millions of dollars to get revenge for Nixon (that's what this was about! Again, stated openly by Henry Hyde (R) chairman of the Judiciary Committee) is...Clinton's fault.

[Enthusiast]

203. Adorers?

You are way off base. There was an unreasonable persecution of Clinton for more than eight years. It was on TV news 24/7. It was ridiculous.

[karynnj]

117. If Clinton would have told the truth from the moment he was asked under oath,

there would have been NO 2 years of investigation. Per the Sydney Blumenthal book, early in his administration, the Clintons were asked by a group of top Democratic Senators (the ones I remember were Bradley, Mohnihan and Kerry) to simply get EVERYTHING out on White Water to avoid it being an issue. As they had done nothing illegal, doing so would have set a different tone. (Consider Obama sat for 2 or 3 hours with the Chicago Tribune answering every question on Resko - which did defuse that issue) Blumenthal reported that the Clintons, particularly Hillary went ballistic after they left.

It was wrong for them to impeach him, but Clinton should have held himself to higher standards - both in terms of his behavior and in telling the truth.

[NYC Liberal]

150. Umm, the "under oath" part came at the tail end of the investigation

not before it!

You're right, it was wrong for them to impeach him. It was also wrong to investigate it in the first place. Which is the whole point of the matter. The Republicans spent years looking for something, anything, that they could nail Clinton with. If it hadn't been this, they'd have kept trying. Whitewater, Socks' Christmas cards, Vince Foster's "murder" etc etc. Again, he wouldn't have had to DO anything for them to have investigated, because it was all revenge for Nixon.

You don't seriously think that, had he "held himself to higher standards" the investigations or even possibly the impeachment wouldn't have happened do you? They were out for blood and they were going to get it.

If he had dyed his hair, Republicans probably would have claims he was "willfully deceiving the American people by trying to make himself appear younger and thus mask potential health problems that could impede with his ability to carry out his duties." Sound funny? Well that's what they would have resorted to.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. Clinton's resignation would have led to an actual George W Bush victory in 2000

Yes Clinton was fucking stupid for his sexual indiscretions in the first place. But once it happened, it happened. Had the Republicans simply censured him and moved on it would've been a clear win for them. However, the entire affair was neutral if not a net loss for the GOP because they decided to pursue an impeachment that the American people did not support. Clinton's approval ratings jumped 10 points when he was impeached and the fact that he chose to stay and fight helped Gore in the end.

Gore would've been best served by Clinton just keeping it in his pants. But once he did have the affair Clinton's decision to stay and fight and more importantly, drag the Republicans down with him, was the best thing he could've done to help Gore. Had he chosen to resign, the Republicans would've been vindicated and Gore would have lost in 2000.

[Hamlette]

141. If it was a trumped up farce, why should he have quit? n/t

[struggle4progress]

13. "I spent $70 million dollars, and all I got was this illegal tape-recording about a blowjob"

[leftstreet]

14. What would have happened if Bill had said, "Yes, I had sex with that woman" ?

"Next question?"

I've always wondered...

[Senator]

19. Regardless of what would have happened politically...

...he would have acted indiscreetly about a private matter and would have tossed the girl to the jackals. Anything but denial would have been taken as a yes.

---

[jberryhill]

23. +1

I am often surprised at how many people place no value on keeping a confidence. An affirmative answer would have indeed been dishonorable.

[ShortnFiery]

24. Holy Shit! No it would have been HONEST.

Wow, sometimes I don't think I know what passes for democratic leaders but it wasn't Bill Clinton who should have resigned. :thumbsdown:

If you haven't noticed far too many of the wives of these "illustrious" men BLAME "the girl" and not their horny husbands. That speaks to their character as being less than stellar.

In other words, Bill would have thrown Hill to "the jackals" if it would have gleaned him more political power. But instead, BOTH Bill and Hill threw "the girl to the jackals." :puke:

[jberryhill]

132. It was nobody's business

Why not ask politicians for "HONEST" answers to questions like what sexual positions they prefer, whether they like oral, whether they swallow, what are their views on anal sex, and a comprehensive list of people, places, and relevant acts.

That's not "HONESTY". That's bullshit.

[stevenleser]

163. ...crickets...

Very well said.

[Abq_Sarah]

181. Unless you're under oath.

[jberryhill]

209. Which he didn't do

Point to the particular spot in the convoluted transcript of that deposition.

(which is an issue entirely apart from the materiality element)

[Abq_Sarah]

213. I'm not even remotely interested

In determining what the meaning of the word "is" is. That was a low moment in American history.

[jberryhill]

214. That's statement is not even relevant to the perjury claim

And was in reference to a statement made by someone else.

Clinton was asked to explain his counsel's statement that there "is no relationship" which was a true statement at the time it was made.

Like "Al Gore invented the internet" or "Sarah Palin can see Alaska from her house", the "what 'is' is" thing was torn from context and re-cast as something more than it was.

The Paula Jones suit had no merit, and was dismissed as having no merit. The entire point of it was a GOP effort to have fun & games with words with irrelevant issues in a deposition, which is precisely what opposing counsel was doing. Clinton was simply pointing out the word games in which the other side was engaged.

[ieoeja]

222. I happened to catch the "is is" moment live on CSPAN.

I heard the question and started screaming at the TV -- so, you see, it was ME who successfully alerted Clinton to the trap; he must have heard me through the TV -- that it was a trick question. When he answered I was pleased that he saw the trap, but admittedly did wince at "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" recognizing immediately that the Rightists would play up that one phrase.

As Clinton himself explained in his reply, it is not true that there is a relationship. But it is true that there was a relationship.

So you see, Abq_Sarah, for the question he was answering at the moment he was answering it, the answer to the question depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.

I assume you have never heard/read the full question and answer. Because nobody who did could honestly object to Clinton's reply.

[leftstreet]

25. Everyone I knew at the time would have respected his 'yes.'

As it was, everyone knew he was lying so they were less than sympathetic to the impeachment process - regardless of what it was actually about.

[karynnj]

118. Sorry, he already threw the girl to the jackals

when he argued that she stalked him. This was not "gentleman" Bill defending the honor of the young girl.

[Senator]

189. No, not really.

He said that (if at all*) in a private conversation. And besides, it was absolutely true.

--
* No, I don't want to get into Sid's credibility.

==

[Baby Snooks]

27. It wasn't the sex it was where the sex took place...

He disgraced the office as well as himself. The thing I really still don't like is he didn't see anything wrong with it. And neither did Hillary. It just became another platform for her. Bill as victim.

I have often wondered what would have happened had Pamela Harriman been alive. I suspect he would have resigned. She wanted Al Gore to run in 1992. And intended for him to run. Until Ann Richards and Bob Strauss introduced her to Bill Clinton. Al Gore would succeed him. Or so she thought. But the thought was nice at the time. 16 years of a Democrat in the White House. Instead we got eight. And then eight years of Bush.

His sexual escapades cost Al Gore the White House. And for that reason alone I never have and never will have anything nice to say about him. Or about Hillary. I cannot imagine where we would be had he won in 2000 and while the Supreme Court made a decision that gave Bush the state of Florida I will always believe that had the scandal not been there he might have carried all the states and that would have been that. There would have been no Florida and no Supreme Court.

I do know we wouldn't be where we are. And where we are is not a nice place for a growing number of Americans. And part of the reason why is the eight years of Clinton as well as the eight years of Bush.

[leftstreet]

30. +1

:thumbsup:

I forgot all about Pamela Harriman backing Gore. (Memory's going.)

[stevenleser]

33. Utter crap. Even elected officials have a right to privacy and not have consensual sex affect their

jobs. Clinton could have boffed every adult woman (and man) in the country as far as I am concerned and as long as it was consensual, it should not have affected his job.

[ShortnFiery]

37. No Clinton could NOT have boffed any woman because his marriage was NOT open.

Don't you remember how Hillary and Bill became VERY DEFENSIVE and were actively denying that he was "an unfaithful husband" constantly during the 1992 Election?

I could ALMOST buy that argument if they BOTH declared "an open marriage" but not when they are so damn hypocritical.

In fact, I'm anticipating a potential future "video" because I still believe that Bill Clinton lacks self-control.

WHAT WOULD either Bill or Hillary Clinton have done to squelch "a video?" ... or to prevent "another woman" from outing an torrid affair?

It makes them both security risks. Gay men and Lesbians can hold security clearances if they are "open" in the civilian sphere BUT infidelity by either spouse can also get one's clearance pulled.

Again, because the marriage was/is NOT OPEN, they can't have it both ways being public figures.

p.s. I forgot the "insult to injury" = Monica was Clinton's SUBORDINATE. A power relationship would get an military member UCMJ action as "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer."

[stevenleser]

41. Irrelevant. It's like asking a woman how many men she slept with prior to running for office

it is a question we are not entitled to ask and whose answer on which we are not entitled to act.

Consensual sex between adults isn't a legitimate political issue. It doesnt matter how you try to twist it around.

[ShortnFiery]

45. No, it's VERY relevant where Security and Blackmail are concerned. It is MOST RELEVANT.

:(

When people are "public figures" and they are MARRIED with Security Clearances, it's NOT intrusive to EXPECT fidelity. Otherwise they are setting themselves and/or their spouse up for potential blackmail attempts. You know that, don't you?

[stevenleser]

52. Not for a question we are not entitlted to know about to begin with, not it isnt n/t

[ShortnFiery]

55. If you're a military member or a civilian with a security clearance, yes - Marital Fidelity matters.

Yes, it is very important and if you are unfaithful, it can mean losing your security clearance.

[stevenleser]

61. That has never applied to members of congress or the White House. Nice try though n/t

[ShortnFiery]

64. It should - you realize that, don't you? I wonder how many men/women have been blackmailed

as a result of their marital infidelities? Because, you and I both know, IT MATTERS.

[wyldwolf]

160. Name some for us.

[Vattel]

136. Yes, maybe Clinton could have been blackmailed

to turn nuclear secrets over to Al Qaeda! I guess we dodged a bullet there. (Do I need the sarcasm thingy, or is it obvious?)

[karynnj]

119. You missed this

"p.s. I forgot the "insult to injury" = Monica was Clinton's SUBORDINATE. A power relationship would get an military member UCMJ action as "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer."

In addition, you can bet that any woman (or man) running for office would be hurt if there was a documented history of RECENT promiscuity.

[stevenleser]

164. The UCMJ has plenty of sanctions that civilians dont have to worry about

Adultery
Showing up for work late
Not showing up for work (AWOL and ultimately desertion)
Insubordination
Missing movement (not being transferred/deployed)
etc, etc, etc.

I've been subject to the UCMJ before so I am quite familiar with it. It is irrelevant in the civilian world. Case in point, not showing up for work in time of war according to the UCMJ can result in the death penalty. Is that something you want to apply to the civilian world too?

[karynnj]

170. Since at least the mid 1980s, there have been laws on work place sexual harrasment

Everyone who worked for any major company knew that this was not allowed - they had work shops on it. Does Senator Packwood ring a bell? If not, google.

[stevenleser]

177. Did something change and did Monica claim sexual harrassment? n/t

[karynnj]

179. No - the rules prohibited a relationship of this sort with

someone who was your subordinate.

[Baby Snooks]

40. "Get a room"

That applies to presidents who can't keep their pants zipped same as everyone else. The Oval Office is a public place. It is OUR office. And a lot of us don't believe it is the place for blowjobs and kinky sex.

[stevenleser]

42. The Oval office IS his room.

The White House is the official residence of the POTUS.

[ShortnFiery]

44. The White House is "The Peoples' House." Bill Clinton helped ENRAGE the right-wing

to such an extent that they "jumped the shark."

I'm a democrat but I DID wish for Bill Clinton to resign after he was caught lying about sex in The Oval Office of THE PEOPLES' HOUSE. :thumbsdown:

[stevenleser]

46. Really how about you try to sleep there then. I'm willing to videotape the attempt

if it is "The people's house" we should be able to all sleep there.

When are you going?

[ShortnFiery]

49. Now you're just being silly. But you know that IT MATTERS with public figures - don't you? nt

[stevenleser]

54. Sure, try to discount the argument because you cannot get around it. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

56. No, I discount your argument because it's inane.

;)

[stevenleser]

58. But its our house. You said so, so actually its YOUR argument you are calling inane

I'm just asking you to prove it is OUR house and I will videotape the event.

[ShortnFiery]

59. ...

:crazy:

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Baby Snooks]

51. Wrong...

The official residence is upstairs. The downstairs is OURS not theirs.

[stevenleser]

53. If it's OURS, how about you walk in and try to use it? Again.. I'll videotape the attempt

just let me know when.

[ShortnFiery]

57. You've slipped into another dimension. Yes, it's called "The Peoples' House."

And no, I don't want a morally bankrupt President, male or female, boffing "subordinates" in the Oval Office.

Call me quaint. :eyes:

[stevenleser]

60. OK, if its ours, lets see you use it.

The point which you and Fiery refuse to admit to is, the President has a reasonable expectation that you and I are not watching him in the White House wherever he happens to be alone with someone or some group.

That of course is just in addition to all the other arguments about our not having a right to know about other people's sexlives.

[ShortnFiery]

62. Oh get REAL! He's a public figure but he deluded himself to think that he could get

away with immoral acts ... just like his other arrogant over-sexed buddies Spitzer and Edwards.

No, it's immoral if the marriage is not declared open and if you are not the "illustrious" President or a national legislator, marital infidelity can get your Security Clearance revoked.

[wyldwolf]

82. whatever you think about what he did, he DID get away with it! LOL!

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

85. Yes, and our beloved Nation is worse off due to Bill's megalomania. It truly is ALL ABOUT HIM.

:puke:

[wyldwolf]

88. We already know Sean Hannity's opinion

[ShortnFiery]

97. Yeah, if you're not with the DLC Blue Dog's opinion, you are with Sean Hannity.

Nice tactics from "a democratic Rovarian?"

[wyldwolf]

103. you're the one spouting Sean Hannity lines! LOL! LOL!

[The Magistrate]

145. Here, Sir, The Far Left And The Far Right Back Into One Another And Do The Booty Bump

There are a few persons on the left so consumed with hatred for President Clinton and his family that they adopt lock, stock, and barrel the lines and attitudes of those on the right who display a similar hatred. It is a pernicious tendency. At bottom, their hatred stems simply from resentment of the popularity enjoyed by President Clinton and his family, which is a standing rebuke to their incapacity to draw more than a small handful of people to share their views. Much as these types value their 'outsider' status, this inability at times threatens their self-image of superiority to the mass of humankind. It is a delicate line to walk, to both believe oneself better and brighter than all the rest, and glory in being agreed with by almost no one: at times the raw edges of that unlikely mating chafe a bit....

[AtomicKitten]

165. There is a wide berth of opinion in between that you are ignoring.

Yes, Bill Clinton was a victim of a sustained witchhunt against him, and that's really the point some are trying to make. It was nothing short of stupid bordering on arrogant stupid to do what he did anyway KNOWING he had a microscope on him.

As I stated above at the beginning of this clusterfuck thread, impeachment was overkill, censure more appropriate. And, yes, Bill Clinton did deserve some sort of punishment for lying under oath.

All the excuses, particularly the twisty-turn rationalization that somehow Turley is responsible for the present-day issue of torture is beyond ludicrous and really speaks to a culture of apologists that are so wrapped up in protecting the Clintons that they can't be honest about his shortcomings in that sordid episode.

Your broad-brush albeit stark categorization is convenient but really as absurd as this red herring OP. DU has jumped the shark regarding the Clintons, a mindset I'm glad to have recovered from, but I view your post as an assault on reason and an abject lack of respect for opinions that fall well within the rigid parameters you have meted out.

[stevenleser]

169. It's amazing AK because I love everything else I have read from you here on DU

But I disagree utterly here. See Message 133:

jberryhill Thu May-07-09 09:34 AM
It was nobody's business

Why not ask politicians for "HONEST" answers to questions like what sexual positions they prefer, whether they like oral, whether they swallow, what are their views on anal sex, and a comprehensive list of people, places, and relevant acts.

That's not "HONESTY". That's bullshit.
-------------------------------------------------

See, ultimately, you can get anyone to lie about something eventually if you ask enough questions. You will find something they do not want to disclose and that's it. See the term "Perjury Trap" on the web. It's very enlightening about this kind of thing.

[AtomicKitten]

171. I am not arguing that the witchhunt had any validity; it did not.

One of my favorite books is "The Hunting of the President" which outlines an insidious campaign to bring down Bill Clinton. It was bullshit from the get-go.

The question should never have been asked and never have been answered. But it didn't go down that way, and I'm sorry but lying under oath is wrong. It's wrong for everybody else, in fact, people have gone to jail for it. I do not hold anyone to a higher standard.

The impeachment was bullshit and didn't rise anywhere in the neighborhood of "high crimes and misdemeanors." While this mess was undoubtedly wingnut-inspired, many Democrats voted for impeachment anyway, going along to get along.

My point is that what Clinton did was stupid. He gave the wingnuts the ammunition they had been excavating for years with their drawn-out and meandering inquiry.

This is an entirely separate argument from the torture debate. Just because you're pissed that Turley was called upon as a Constitutional attorney to weigh in and what he had to say is contrary to what you and I believe doesn't make him bereft of value in the public square.

What went down years ago and what is going on today with regard to torture are entirely separate issues. In other words, I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. I am able to disagree with Turley on the Clinton impeachment and agree with him on torture, and I don't feel the need to browbeat people into agreeing with me. It's just my opinion.

[The Magistrate]

192. A Long String Of Comments Nearby, Ma'am, Amply Demonstrate The Accuracy Of My Statement

When it comes to hating President Clinton and his family, there is a small slice of the far left that is indistinguishable from the extreme right in either the lines or the tone of attack employed. This level of hatred, when displayed on the extreme right, is properly recognized as irrational, and it is no more rational when it emanates from far left quarters. Regardless of direction, it is always the working out of private issues arising from a poor fit with one's fellows in society, displaced onto a celebrity figure. These things are not opinion, in the sense normally meant when people discuss public matters and policies, since they do not arise from consideration of facts in light of reason and experience, but are instead simply the noise emitted by wounded emotions, focused onto some person made an object for use in someone else's private melodrama.

The fact is, Ma'am, that Turley does bear some portion of blame for the political climate that so discredited the idea of impeachment over the last decade. His grotesque exaggerations of what constituted an impeachable offense materially assisted a similarly grotesque exercise in rabid partisanship, which left the public with the conclusion that impeachment by a Congressional majority of a different party than that the Executive belonged to was simply an expression of political rivalry, and not a remedy against crimes of state. In the course of the Republican campaign for impeachment of President Clinton, Turley made himself the public face of the argument in favor of that being a legitimate act. He got himself a career as a 'talking head' out of it, and he has never acknowledged his error, or faced up to its consequences. When a man has exercised such poor judgement, in the interest of his own self-aggrandizement, he is permanently discredited, and anything he says subsequently must be taken at a very substantial discount. He makes, in short, the poorest possible spokesman for any view. With Turley, one must always take into account that his principal interest is posturing as a person of moral superiority, licensed by his own self-satisfaction to hold everyone but himself to the highest imaginable standards, from a position where he himself bears, and will accept, not the slightest trace of responsibility for the consequences of the extreme measures he urges on others. It is of no importance that he states torture by the government is a crime; everyone knows that, and he gains no standing whatever for saying what everyone knows. For comparison, here are some comments by a genuine authority on the subject, who bears responsibility, Prof. Novak of the United Nations. The contrast between his comments, and the shrill self-promotion of Turley, is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug....

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/25/nowak/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/greenwald

[AtomicKitten]

195. Two things.

First, I am not commenting on the tone and caliber of the extremes that you claim have converged on the subject of Bill Clinton's impeachment, I am pointing out that you failed to acknowledge the myriad of opinion in between that is reasonable and fact-based.

Second, your comments on Prof. Turley are based on your view of him personally, or rather your characterization of him. That's where your argument falls apart. What you think of him personally has little to do with an honest critical analysis of Bill Clinton vis a vis impeachment.

Rather than discussing Bill Clinton's part in what Bill Clinton did, you attacked not only the messenger but those that aren't willing to just give him a pass for his behavior.

Finally and for the record, I applaud anyone that is willing to stand up in any venue and remind America of our national and international obligations to prosecute war crimes.

[The Magistrate]

196. No, Ma'am, My View Of Him Derives From The Poor Quality Of His Comments On Impeachment A Decade Ago

Nothing he has done since has given me any cause to alter that view. His arguments on the subject of impeachment were of about the same caliber as John Yoo's arguments on torture: of such poor quality and falsity that they could only derive from a deliberate intent to distort law to achieve some goal that could not be gained lawfully. In Yoo's case, it was a criminal policy his superiors desired; in Turley's case, it was a celebrity and notoriety a competent and honest analysis of the law could not possibly bring him.

None of the rest of this interests me, Ma'am. Leveling an attack on certain extreme views does not obligate me to do any other thing in the course of making that attack. It is a fact: a great deal of the hate directed towards President Clinton and his family from some on the far left is indistinguishable in content and tone from the attacks on President Clinton and his family arising from the extreme right. It does not bother me at all that some people do not like having this obvious fact pointed out. The truth is that extremists as a class have more affinity among themselves, in terms of behavior and character, than they do with temperate and considerate and rational people, whatever their ostensible political views may be.

[AtomicKitten]

198. Again, middle ground seems to have escaped you.

I once defended anything, and I mean anything the Clintons did; an extreme POV in itself. But by virtue of historical research and experiencing the primaries, they have forever lost the goodwill/free pass I once gave them.

Discussion of historical fact that is deemed unflattering to the Clintons is met with angry protestations from some here including accusations of mimicking the rightwing, and that stuff in this setting is the epitome of cult of personality politics. It's a tough pill to swallow apparently, but to many people the Clintons are just like any other politicians and should be open for discussion, but alas that is not the case here, ironically GD-Politics, by virtue of the brow-beating coming from people like you.

I remain content, comfortable, and confident in the opinion that Prof. Turley was wrong on the Clinton impeachment and is right on torture. Enough said.

[The Magistrate]

199. What Occasion is There For Me To Quarrel With Middle Ground, Ma'am?

Why should people genuinely ensconced on same feel assailed when extreme and irrational hatred is attacked and exposed?

Where Turley is wrong in the present issue is on maters of judgement concerning what is the correct course to vindicate the law. Again, to say that the law was broken requires no particular expertise or insight, or even much nerve; no one gets any particular credit for it. Turley's judgement concerning what is to be done, and when it is to be done, at present, is no better than his judgement of law a decade ago. It is instructive that he spends much more time berating Democrats than he does berating the actual criminal actors. That, Ma'am, is the secret to why he gets as much air-time as he does....

[AtomicKitten]

207. My point exactly.

Why should people genuinely ensconced on same feel assailed when extreme and irrational hatred is attacked and exposed?

Your attacking the messenger, in this case Jonathan Turley, is duly noted.

Also referring to some DU'ers as "rightwing" is expressly prohibited in DU rules. No worries, though, I'm reasonably certain DU admin will let it slide. ;)

[The Magistrate]

216. You Have No Point, Ma'am: Merely An Urge To Scrap

You say 'attacking the messenger' like it were some bad thing to do. Of course, when persons have demonstrated poor judgement over time, it is quite proper to doubt a new exercise of judgement by them. Would you say someone was doing something wrong if they pointed out that a person had demonstrated sound judgement and analysis in the past, and therefore they were inclined to agree with that person's present prescription for action?

Many people on the far left swallow whole and regurgitate frequently extreme right attack lines in their mis-guided zeal to assail leading Democratic political figures. These lines are not improved in the slightest by their brief sojourn in such a belly: they become neither more rational or more accurate thereby.

[AtomicKitten]

217. You have no point, sir. Merely disparagement of the messenger and other DU'ers.

Not once did you address the genesis of this issue: Bill Clinton's responsibility for what Bill Clinton did, and that speaks volumes.

[The Magistrate]

218. The Genesis Of This, Ma'am, Is The Fact Of An Attempted Coup Under Color Of Law Led By Gingrich

And assisted in measureable degree by Turley, and the effect it has had on our political life over the last decade or so. This is not a discussion of any action by President Clinton: it is a discussion of whether or not there were any legitimate grounds for the House to vote a Bill of Impeachment, and of what weight should be given the judgement and advice at present of persons who insisted falsely that grounds for such a Bill existed at that time. It is true that some persons have seized the occasion to vent their hatred of President Clinton and his family, and proclaim themselves to be 'true Democrats' while pressing lines fewer than one in ten registered members of the Democratic Party agree with, but that does not make the discussion 'about' this, because these people can be relied on to seize any occasion that offers them the remotest chance of doing this, and then to protest shrilly they are being 'bullied' or 'silenced' when they meet wide disagreement, and when their regurgitation of standard attacks pressed for years by the extreme right is pointed out for all to see.

[AtomicKitten]

219. Again your zeal for protectionism limits the conversation

to the old standby accusation of "hater." It may surprise you to know, and I point back to my original post in response to your attack on fellow DU'ers, that there is a myriad of opinion that lies well between the rigid parameters of debate you are trying to impose that is fact-based and encompasses the entire subject. It is you that conveniently eliminates any accountability for Bill Clinton for his actions that set fire to this whole sordid mess.

You fail to acknowledge in your zealous protectionism that had Bill Clinton not given the witchhunters the ammunition, he would not have been impeached in the first place. That the proceedings were overkill is a given, but you gloss over how this affected the Democratic Party as a whole, choosing instead to attack anyone unwilling to just give him a pass.

In conclusion as I'm off for the weekend, disparaging people that disagree with your carefully sculpted version of reality is not an argument.

[The Magistrate]

220. You are Correct, Ma'am: It Is My View Domestic Industry Should Be Fostered By Equalizing Tariffs

What relevance that has to the topic at hand escapes me, but it never bothers me to have an opportunity to state my opposition to the destructive ideology of the 'free marketeers'.

[AtomicKitten]

221. There you go again. Disparagement is your game and it's still not an argument.

Alternate acceptable meaning of protectionism: Protectiveness; the act of shielding or protecting from attack, harm or injury; guarding; defending.

[The Magistrate]

223. Reagan Wore That Line Out The First Time He Used It, Ma'am

You are going to have to hold up your end a good deal better than this if you expect to hold my interest against the other amusements currently competing for it....

"For the Snark was a Boojum, you see...."

[AtomicKitten]

224. And you've worn out patience offered to formulate a viable argument and have failed.

What you have managed to do successfully, however, is prove your characterization of the "far left" is merely a projection of your own inability to process historical events regarding the Clintons thoughtfully.

You have also reinforced the relief many Democrats feel about the defeat of the Clinton Machine. Their apologists have been a great disservice to the party with their embarrassingly selective interpretation of history.

[The Magistrate]

225. It Is Not Often, Ma'am, People Lose Out To Washing Dishes as a Source Of Entertainment

But you have managed it, and have my congratulations on a unique achievement!

[AtomicKitten]

226. Better luck in that endeavor. n/t

[Baby Snooks]

63. He works for us....

We supply the president an office, staff, and security. We allow the president to live in the White House. In the "family quarters" as the upstairs is called. We are the landlord in a way. We do not have the right to intrude upstairs. We do have the right to enforce our "rules and regulations" for the common areas. Including the Oval Office.

And I have yet to see where we agreed that the Oval Office was allowed to be used as a party room for perverts. And you know that is really the best word to use to describe Bill Clinton. He is a pervert. Him and his disgusting cigar. That really was what it was all about. The cigar. In the Oval Office. Like a bad script for a cheap porno movie.

That said Pamela Harriman would have kicked his perverted ass out of Washington.

[karynnj]

120. His offiicial RESIDENCE is in the other wing

[bvar22]

154. In the REAL World....

...an executive having sex with a subordinate is grounds for immediate termination. In some professions, it is grounds for criminal prosecution.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Baby Snooks]

70. You're talking about the impeachment...

I'm talking about him. And Hillary. And Gennifer Flowers. And how he didn't have an affair with that woman. And how Hillary was not just some woman standing by her man. And about Monica Lewinski. And how he didn't have sex with that woman. And how Bill was a victim according to Hillary.

Poor abused Bill. He had been abused as a child. So I guess he needed love? Or just kinky sex? She never really did explain that. Of course if he needed love, or kinky sex, one might reach the conclusion he obviously wasn't getting it from her. Maybe he just liked to abuse women. Now THAT everyone can believe.

You know who was a victim? We were. Of them.

?

You know what's wrong with this picture? Bob Strauss forgot to tell Pamela Harriman that he was a good friend of George HW Bush.

The Republicans may not have liked Bill Clinton. But looking back it looks like George HW Bush liked him just fine. And still does.

[eridani]

72. Lyiing under oath is not perjury unless the lie is about a material fact

Lying about consensual sex is not a material fact when the issue was whether he did or did not commit sexual harassment in the Paula Jones case.

[Baby Snooks]

76. Oh, I forgot about Paula Jones...

Which one was she after Gennifer Flowers? She was the one most women would have folded the cards over so to speak and ended the game. But not Hillary. Who really didn't care. She had her own agenda. Still does.

[wyldwolf]

81. yes! It's absolutely unforgivable for a woman to have her on agenda!

:sarcasm:

[girl_interrupted]

83. Baby Snooks Maybe you should read what Coulter had to say about Jones

Coulter: After Jones posed nude for Penthouse magazine this caused her to be publicly denounced as "trailer-park trash" by author Ann Coulter, who said, "I totally believed she was the good Christian girl who had suffered sexual harassment. That is what she made herself out to be....Now it turns out she's a fraud, at least to the extent of pretending to be an honorable and moral person." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

or "Is Paula Jones' story falling apart?" "The Washington attorney and journalist whose November 1996 article in the American Lawyer pumped fresh blood into Paula Jones' charges of sexual harassment against President Clinton, is now doing the backstroke. Taylor, who has become a mainstream media celebrity since he defended Jones' allegations (and accused feminists of hypocrisy for not giving them the same credence as Anita Hill's), now says that new disclosures could seriously undermine Jones' charges that on May 8, 1991, then-Arkansas Gov. Clinton sexually harassed her in a Little Rock hotel room.

Most damaging, Taylor told Salon, are statements by Carol Phillips, a former receptionist in then-Gov. Clinton's office who was friendly with Jones. In an interview with Taylor for an article that appeared in Monday's Legal Times, Phillips said that the day after the alleged harassment incident, Jones "came by the governor's office," and, "in a happy and excited manner," volunteered the information that "she went up to meet the governor and they met in a room and they just talked." Phillips told Taylor that she concluded that their meeting had been "totally innocent." Taylor also quoted Phillips as saying that Jones had described Clinton during the meeting as "very gentle with her. I remember her saying, 'He is so sweet, he is such a gentle person. http://www.salon.com/june97/news/news970625.html


Or Maybe David Brock in his book "Blinded by the Right" or maybe Joe Conason's book "The Hunting of the President"

Nothing like Paula's makeover & 15 minutes of fame paid for conservatives, who in the end abandoned her when she was no longer useful to their cause.

[ShortnFiery]

92. Yes, Bill is the poor "VICTIM" ... it's always the GOP's or the mean ole liberal democrat's FAULT.

:eyes:

[JTFrog]

121. Coulter, Salon, David Brock? JFC you realize this is a Democratic site? WTF?

:wtf:

Take that shit back over to freeperville.

[wyldwolf]

122. what's your issue with Salon, David Brock, and Joe Conason?

[JTFrog]

123. What diff does it make. I know better than to fucking say anything here against the conservative

crap posted.

My bad.

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

124. how is Salon and Conason "conservative crap?"

[JTFrog]

125. Conason isn't, if you notice, I had included him by accident and deleted it. Like you'd notice....

pffff

Like I said. What does it fucking matter. Go bug someone else now.

[wyldwolf]

127. why would anyone go back to look at your post once they'd already replied to it?

:shrug:

Salon, then? Conservative crap? I guess you can alway go back and delete THAT, too.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Baby Snooks]

146. And ruin my beautiful mind?

I do not read Ann Coulter. I try not to think about Ann Coulter. I refuse to say her name in conversation. Afraid of what it might conjure up from the depths of hell.

She is like a Stepford Wife who became a Stepford Orphan. The one found wandering around the grocery store aisles. A memory chip missing. With no one claiming her.

I had forgotten about Paula Jones. She is a blur at this point. Except for a vague vision of "trailer trash" splattered all over tabloid covers. The president and his "trailer trash."

I'm sure Monica Lewinski told people she'd been in the Oval Office. And probably told people it was innocent. Went out of her way to tell people it was innocent. It wasn't innocent.

Paula Jones probably was just looking for some fame and some fortune. And thought why not. It's Bill Clinton. Everyone knows he can't keep his pants zipped. And everyone did. Monica Lewinski was probably just looking for some fame and some fortune also. And thought why not...

That sums up the Clinton presidency. He was the president. So he could do what he wanted. Just because he could. His exact words as I recall in his autobiography. Just because he could.

This country is collapsing because of people doing what they wanted just because they could. Particularly on Wall Street.

[Enthusiast]

205. What is the point of being President

if you can't even get a blow job from a fat bottomed girl?

[ShortnFiery]

87. Yes we are "oh so proud" that our President was such a compulsive sex addict

that he couldn't control himself around his subordinates. Real feminists ole Bubba was, aye?

[eridani]

193. Being a sex addict doesn't warrant impeachment n/t

[wyldwolf]

80. what about it?

:shrug:

[TexasObserver]

73. The impeachment of Clinton was one of the most heinous actions by congress, ever.

It stands for one only thing: the vicious, partisan hatred of the GOP.

[girl_interrupted]

75. I'm always glad Clinton stood his ground, didn't fold and resign

I've seen far too many Democrats give in, when Republicans put the heat on. Time & time again. So I'm glad Clinton stood his ground for what was never an impeachable offense, but a partisan witchhunt. For all the talk of morality, Clinton's affair took place behind closed doors. And Republicans so "worried about the children" were tripping over each other to get the graphic details all over the internet. And let's not forget as a young lawyer, Hillary Clinton was asked to sit on the impeachment committee for Richard M Nixon, a fact Republicans never forgot or forgave. Henry Hyde admitted the Clinton impeachment was "payback" for Nixon. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250321,00.html

At the time of the impeachment hearings, Clinton's approval ratings jumped 10 points to 73% http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/

Voters put Clinton in office twice & had it been the "people" and not the Republican party that wanted him to resign, it would have been one thing, as they did with Richard Nixon, but it wasn't. And in terms of "crimes" I also don't see what Nixon did can even be compared to Clinton. Nixon also did everything he could to interfere with his pending investigation by firing the Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and accepting the resignations of Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/102173-2.htm It was an event known as the 'Saturday Night Massacre' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre Nixon was mad with power.


On the hand, Clinton cooperated fully with his ongoing investigation. He put it on the line. His fate was put in the hands of congress. Could have gone either way. So turning over the Presidency to Gore would have been exactly what Republicans craved and I'm so glad Clinton didnt cave to these bullies. As much as I admire & respect Al Gore, he had his turn to be elected by the people ( I still think he was, but that's another story) not by Clinton rolling over and giving in to Republicans

And let's be honest here, if every member of Congress or the Presidency were booted out because of an affair, there probably be a hell of lot of empty seats on both sides of the aisle. And here's food for thought, while Clinton's approval ratings were soaring during impeachment & the Republicans knew full well they couldn't remove him, they still went ahead, compare that to bush's crimes, his approval ratings, and Pelosi saying "impeachment" was off the table.

Yesterday in one of our local papers, there was a poll, NY Voters would trade Paterson for Spitzer in a New York Minute. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/05/04/2009-05-04_new_yorkers_prefer_disgraced_ex_gov_eliot_spitzer_to_david_paterson_marist_poll_.html And while we couldn't show Spitzer the door fast enough a year ago, David "Diaper" Vitter (R) was welcomed back to congress with applause.

I don't see how you can compare the impeachment of Clinton with bush's participation in allowing torture, either. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

As far as Turley is concerned, everyone has a right to opinion. Sometimes you will agree with his opinion, sometimes not & that's fine. But I can understand why some people feel, new faces advocating the same as Turley would be welcomed. The more the merry, more voices should be added to the subject. Instead of giving the apearance that it's one man's opinion and possibly biased. Obama has not ruled out prosecution, but handed it over to the DOJ. I think if Obama wants to look objective and not partisan, that was the appropriate measure. Otherwise you are going to find a lot of people saying its payback, a witch hunt & politics. In the meantime, for a new president he has an awful lot on his plate to deal with as well.

As much as I would like to see bush/cheney held responsible, something really gave me pause the other day. "Poll finds lack of support for 'torture' investigations" http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/bush.torture/index.html#cnnSTCText

If this poll is correct, I think it's because a lot of voters are more concerned with the economy, whether or not they are going to lose their jobs, pay their mortgages, pay off their credit cards, send their kids to college, afford medical care and basically, just stay afloat. Unfortunately there is nothing more to make voters pay attention, then when it hits their wallets. Obama is going to have pick his priorities very carefully. A lot of people are depending on him for so many things. And he's only been in office a bit more than a hundred days.

[ShortnFiery]

86. I'm ashamed of my party that they did not FORCE that arrogant man to resign.

Today we would be much better off as a nation.

[wyldwolf]

91. YOUR party? YOUR opinion is so rare in the Democratic party ...

... one has to wonder which party YOURS really is.

[ShortnFiery]

95. Bullshit! Many people have had quite enough of Bubba. We're tired of defending the indefensible.

Gawd, will Bill Clinton please exit from the national stage already? An increasingly significant percentage of democrats have "had enough" of the seemingly ENDLESS delusions that Clinton adorers repetitively FORCE FEED the others in OUR party.

Bank on it! :thumbsup:

[wyldwolf]

98. Don't dodge this: Show me some Democrats who think the party should have forced Clinton to resign

[ShortnFiery]

99. I'm not dodging this. You berate anyone who dare whisper one slight on your "Idol" but

he is overstaying his welcome. When the posse is not out, many democrats will ADMIT that they would have defended him all over again, but they wish that they didn't have to.

Bill Clinton KNEW that this scandal would paralyze our Nation but he didn't care, he was going to STAY President ... to hell with the party or the people. :(

[wyldwolf]

101. you just did. SHOW US DEMOCRATS who felt the party should have force him to resign! DON'T DODGE IT

[ShortnFiery]

107. I gave an opinion. Many other democrats when not being brow beaten, would admit the same.

But you already KNOW that. All you are about is destroying anyone who would dare slight your guy.

[wyldwolf]

110. you said it was BULLSHIT that your opinion is RARE in the Democratic party.. so show us more...

... show us how many Democrats agree with you... :rofl:

DODGE--- SPIN--- DIVERT!!

[paulk]

138. LOL!

you're hardly the only one who wonders....

[Enthusiast]

206. +1, TexasObserver. nt

[wyldwolf]

78. revisionism on DU???? NO WAY!

:sarcasm:

The netroots have their owned skewed view of history.

[ShortnFiery]

89. True. Because the blessed members of the corporate DLC would never lie to us.

Those damn republicans and liberal democrats MADE Bill repetitively and compulsively cheat on Hillary. Thay MADE him lie about it under oath too.

YOU BETCHA! :crazy:

[wyldwolf]

93. what a nonsensical and irrelevant reply. It's like you picked a post at random to reply to

[karynnj]

90. Actually I have never seen ANYONE post that Bill Clinton should have been impeached

Look at the letter you quote- it says:
"Some of us believe that the President has acted disgracefully" All Democratic Senators agreed with this letter that it didn't reach the criteria for impeachment - but every statement I read criticized Clinton's actions - using words like without honor (and without sense) etc. (I scanned most of them, finding the arguments for the former and words used in the latter interesting in showing a lot about the Senator who wrote them.)

I think we all agree that it was done because the Republicans in the House could. What they needed to do so was two things - 1)The political will on the part of half the Senate and 2) Some violation of the law. Bill Clinton gave them the latter when he didn't simply tell the whole truth to Ken Starr and he seemed to coach at least one person to lie. But, the Senate, also pretty much on a party line vote, found those actions less than high crimes and misdemeanors. The public also (from polls) rejected the idea that this was worth impeachment.

That however does not change the fact that Clinton's actions - both in having this relationship with one of the most junior people working at the WH (consider that it would have violated most companies' harassment rules.) and his actions to cover it up were unseemly and hurt the Democratic party. There is no way a man, well known to have been a mean spirited drunk until he was 40, could have made restoring honor to the WH a campaign issue. The fact that those actions did not reach impeachment level, does not mean that they shouldn't be deplored.

[wyldwolf]

94. ShortnFiery - multiple times - in this very thread.

[ShortnFiery]

96. No, I have typed that Bill Clinton should have resigned. Since his ambitions ruled above the

welfare of "the people" the members of his party DID defend him.

However, in retrospect, I believe that a person of honor would NOT have forced us to defend his smarmy, albeit non-impeachable behaviors.

When he LIED under oath, regardless of the run-up, Bill had "hoist himself on his own petard." :thumbsdown:

[wyldwolf]

100. ...and that the party should have FORCED him to resign and that HE was responsible for impeachment

You let the GOP off the hook. :puke:

[ShortnFiery]

105. Yes, IMO, our party should have done their damnest to force Clinton out because he was tainted.

Screwing a subordinate in the Oval Office is "not a good thing" and sort of degrades the office.

The GOP are much more evil but Bill gets the medal for most sexually smarmy and lacking any semblance of humbleness or shame.

Again, it's always someone else's fault when it doesn't go Bill's way.

[wyldwolf]

108. like I said, your opinion is such a rarity here one has to wonder what party you actually represent

[ShortnFiery]

114. No, "a good democrat" sees the flaws in their candidates, yet votes for them anyway if they are

of higher caliber than their primary alternative AND always above a member of any other party.

I just don't fit your DLC mold - it makes "your universe" become somehow unbalanced?

Should you pull "a Rush" and kick me out of YOUR party?

[wyldwolf]

115. That wasn't your argument. PROVE there are many Democrats who think he should have been FORCED ...

... to resign.

[karynnj]

128. Not really - she says in at least one post he should NOT have been impeached

and never says he should have been impeached. You can believe impeachment wrong and still deplore his sexual behavior and his lies.

She did say in many posts that he should have resigned and in hindsight, that could have helped Gore, as he would have been a 2 year incumbent in 2000. Gore could have led the country beyond the ugly partisanship. His strong family would have dispelled the "Democrats have bad values" theme. In fact, the country would have gotten to know the Gores in a way that could never happen in an election campaign. (Look at how Michelle Obama was seen before the election and now among Republicans and independents. The country likes to like the First Family - which is the only way to explain why Laura Bush was so popular)

Gore, at that point, was a pretty conservative Democrat. Though Nader was wrong that there was no difference, there was only a small difference between where Bush SAID he was and where Gore was. Imagine 2000 where the country alread knew and liked the Gores.

[wyldwolf]

131. Clinton has a 70+ percent approval rating after impeachment

and a 68% approval rating when he left office.

Nothing he did caused Gore to lose anything.

[karynnj]

133. That is NOT what I said

The fact though is that ratings were all over the place and depended on what was asked. The job approval numbers included some in the range you speak of, both the "favorable/unfavorable" question had far lower numbers - some significantly below 50%. Some taken at almost the same time that are far higher. I suspect there were differences in how the question was actually asked as the variability was greater than I have usually seen. ( I looked at pollingreport.com years ago)

The point I was making was that had Gore become a sitting President, he likely would have become more popular as he became better known. Because Gore was more introverted than a Clinton or Bush 2 (or Edwards, for that matter), that could have made an enormous difference. Many things that are virtues are liabilities in a political campaign.

What I didn't say was that I never thought of Clinton stepping down in 1998 or 1999 and I would bet that there is no way that Clinton, Gore or people around them ever thought of it seriously and they possibly didn't think of it at all. This is all hindsight - at least in my case - because we know how history worked out. I likely should NOT have gone on that tangent because the point was that she was not saying that impeachment was right.

[wyldwolf]

134. here is what you said

... he should have resigned and in hindsight, that could have helped Gore, as he would have been a 2 year incumbent in 2000.

Gore shouldn't have needed a two year head start to win in 2000. He was the VP of a president with a 68% approval rating and a booming economy.

Gore could have led the country beyond the ugly partisanship. His strong family would have dispelled the "Democrats have bad values" theme.

The why couldn't he project that in the primaries and general election?

[karynnj]

135. I know what I said and it agrees with what I said I said

I also just explained why I thought he would have had a major advantage as a sitting President and why it was unreasonable for Clinton to have stepped down.

[wyldwolf]

106. There's something very freeperish about the line of reasoning some in this thread are using.

I heard the same empty arguments from the right wing in the 90s. Despite some of the intra-party squabbles that go on here, I'm amazed that the right wing lies frothing at the mouth lies about Clinton are being allowed to stand here.

Declaring Clinton should have resigned, that he is a compulsive sex addict, and other such garbage is a direct violation of one of DU's cardinal rules.

[ShortnFiery]

111. Yes, heaven forbid because if we are NOT singing Bill Clinton's praises 100%, then we're with FOX.

Who's playing "Hannity" now? :eyes:

Yes, I have a background in addiction counseling. It's just "my opinion" but I do suspect he may have either compulsions OR a full blown sex addiction. It's just AN OPINION. But it would be too funny if a video surfaces in the near future. I'm bookmarking this thread ... just in case. :evilgrin:

[ShortnFiery]

112. p.s. despite all of the above criticisms, I voted for him twice and would again above a GOPer.

I haven't any other choice.

The quality of our legislators, in general, is abysmal. :shrug:

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hamlette]

143. Your position is the charges against Clinton were trumped up but he should have quit anyway.

Historians say only 2 (maybe 3 now) of our presidents did NOT commit adultry. I franking don't give a shit what my president does in his sex life. But if you do, then you would have made all but 2 of our past presidents resign from office.

Oh, and don't come at me with that lying thing. We all lie about sex.

[niceypoo]

147. Armchair therapist

Reminds me of Bill Frist's 'diagnosis' of Terri Schaivo.

[islandmkl]

126. stevenleser: you could probably edit the title of this OP:

Do YOU hate Bill Clinton?? Here, read this. Comment.


oh yeah, K&R for the response generation....

[stevenleser]

166. You've got that right. Unbelievable. I thought I was free of Freeperish takes on impeachment here

The response threads here are something I never thought I would see on a Democratic leaning site.

[Vattel]

137. wow, a lot of ignorance here about just how ridiculous the impeachment was

[Baby Snooks]

148. It was an abuse of power....

It's been so long I've forgotten so much of what happened but the impeachment itself was an abuse of power - a focus on something that simply was not a crime and therefore did not justify even investigation let alone impeachment.

Yes he lied when asked the question. He shouldn't have been asked the question. Not by Congress anyway. Not by anyone other than the media.

And when the media asked the question he should have simply not answered and when the truth came out he should have simply packed his bags and left Washington. The way Nixon did. The way Bush should have.

[Hamlette]

144. thanks for posting this.

it is undoubtedly coloring my opinion of Turley to this day. Might never forgive him. Wish KO would ask him about that. Ask him if he thinks he contributed to torture by ranting for Clinton's impeachment giving Bush the election which without Turley might have been Gore's.

[bvar22]

155. Now THATS some Historical Revisionism.

The partisan witch hunt would have continued with or without Turley.
Turley's REAL impact was negligible.

Trying to somehow blame Turley for Torture is twisted.

Come back to Planet Earth.

[Hamlette]

159. because you agree with him now

which incidently I do too. I just think he is a pompus ass and can't stand to listen to him lecture me like I'm an idiot. He is preaching to the choir.

And during Clinton he gave cover to the idiot right. I can't tell you how many times I heard some right wing nut in congress say "the well respected legal scholar Johnathan Turley says it is our constitutional duty to impeach and convict." Gag

[bvar22]

172. Preaching to the choir?

He is one of the very few voices willing to STAND UP on National TV and clearly state the Constitutional IMPERATIVE for the prosecution of War Criminals.

If you have a personal problem with Turley, then you have a personal problem.
Deal with it.

I will STRONGLY support ANY voice in the national or local arena that continues to present the case FOR Criminal Prosecutions.

GO TURLEY!

[Hamlette]

176. it would be better for you to convince me if you did not make personal attacks against me.

He's always on MSNBC. That's what I mean with preaching to the choir.

When he was trashing Clinton he was always on Fox.

I do not have a personal problem. Thank you for your concern.

[Uzybone]

152. Anyone who supported Clinton impeachment is a fool

that includes Turley, who was at the head of the pack.

[mistertrickster]

157. Let's not kid ourselves, Bill Clinton was and is part of the Democratic problem,

not part of the solution.

The RepubliCONs were investigating him for everything and anything they could think of and that's when Bill Jeenyous decides to fool around with an intern.

I mean, forget about the morality, that's just reckless to the point of suicidal.

Then came the inevitable lying. Of course, he lied . . . who wouldn't. But when the lies are discovered, then there's hell to pay.

IMHO, he should have stepped down and passed the presidency to Al Gore.

The American people would have been outraged that Clinton had to resign, and Al Gore would have swept into office in 2001 over WorstPresidentEver.

9-11 probably would have never happened. The Iraq War would have never happened. The invasion of Afghanistan would have never happened.

But, no, Clinton refused to go and so helped us get eight years of WorstPresidentEver.

[Political Heretic]

158. So this entire thread is devoted to red herrings?

Whether or not Turley was right or wrong about some other subject has absolutely not a fucking thing to do with whether or not he is right about torture.

It's merely cheap attacks that avoid the issue. If you disagree with his positions on torture, explain why without saying "I disagree with his positions on torture because he treated Bill Clinton bad." :crazy:

[stevenleser]

167. I appreciate that argument, but it is wrong and I will explain why

As I said in another thread, there are positions people can take that are so damaging to their credibility that people will refuse to listen to them after that. The most obvious example of this is holocaust denial. I am not interested in anything else a holocaust denier has to say after taking that position.

The issue here is that there are plenty of other credible voices to whom to listen who have a similar viewpoint on torture without having to resort to an idiot who supported impeachment for clearly partisan reasons. There was no legitimate legal basis for impeachment, the legal community was extremely one sided regarding it and so it was pretty obvious why Turley did what he did.

So we have a documented situation where Turley ignored the law to support an enormously important action that totally altered the trajectory of the country and in fact led to a horrible group taking power that tortured.

If you want an advocate for your position on torture, my suggestion is you find someone else.

[TheKentuckian]

174. Many a strawmen up in this thread

I think Turley is smug, probably more interested in the letter than the spirit of the law, and condescending but it is difficult to pin Clinton's impeachment on him as the Reich was going to be the Reich and did all of this in the face of the public not being on board.

Sure, Captain Anal was fully helping to lead the charge but the battle would have gone on with or without him. With the same results.

Also, the though that Clinton should have resigned over this nonsense is way out there. Why should an effective and popular President resign over doing something that is none of or business and legal. Resigning would have put quite a feather in the cap of the Theocrats, a living example that they are right to codify there own beliefs. No way, no how.

I don't get the belief that if Clinton resigned that Gore would have had a cheat proof majority in 2000. I think it is closer to the truth that Gore hurt himself by putting too much distance between himself and Clinton. Mostly, I feel that Gore just didn't package well enough to get votes from semi-tuned out indies to build a cheat proof margin and that too many tuned in decided in their infinite wisdom that both major parties were the same and voted for 3rd parties or stayed home.

[baldguy]

178. Clinton was NOT impeached for adultery, or for perjury

Or for any other statutory reason.

Clinton was impeached simply for being a Democrat. Monica was just the excuse they hung it on.

[ShortnFiery]

180. Yeah, the GOP made him cheat on his wife and lie under oath.

:eyes:

[baldguy]

183. If they didn't have that, they would have invented another reason.

Limbaugh was talking about impeaching him even before he was sworn in, for heaven's sake. Remember?

[ShortnFiery]

184. Yes, but so much better that Clinton GAVE them the ammunition. Nobody is INNOCENT here.

:shrug:

[baldguy]

185. Clinton was INNOCENT of any actual impeachable offense.

But with no Monica, the GOP would've impeached him for using the wrong fork at a state dinner, or neglecting to return a library book when he was 13. The point is that the charges against him had no merit to begin with, but they went a head & impeached him anyway.

[ShortnFiery]

187. No, Clinton was NOT "innocent" and the more he tried to cover-up his bad behavior, the more trouble

he got himself into. The country suffered because HE GAVE THEM EVIDENCE. :(

[newinnm]

197. Wrong wrong wrong

THe congress decides by default what is impeachable. Impeachment is not a judicial process it is a political process. If the congress says that scratching your ass is an impeachable offence then it is. Was the process misguided and woefully pathetic? Yes. Did congress overstep its boundaries. NO.

nnnm

[polmaven]

204. President Clinton

was ACQUITTED at the impeachment trial in the Senate....Which, by the way, is PART of "Congress".

Impeachment is an indictment. The trial acqutted him of the offense. In this country, he is INNOCENT! Maybe not a DU,but in this country, he is innocent of the impeachable offense.

[newinnm]

227. True

However, the facts remain that it was an impeachable offence

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

186. Particularly the GOP.

They lie, cheat on their spouses, AND attempt a coup against the U.S. president.

[ShortnFiery]

188. Moral equivalency does not apply here but you already know that. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

190. Moral equivalency? What's that?

Is that like saying:

GOP < shithead fucknuts who defend the impeachment < Bill Clinton < People who have never done anything wrong.

[baldguy]

191. Clinton MUST be guilty of something - the GOP sez so.

:sarcasm:

[Kaleva]

200. There's a difference between impeachment & public censure

[Christa]

208. K - nt

[Beacool]

210. Impeachment was the justification the Republicans used to excuse their 5 year witch hunt.

After persecuting the President and First Lady for 5 years, spending millions of our money, causing many people to go into debt for legal fees (including the millions that the Clintons owed their attorneys by the time they left the WH); the only thing that the Repugs had to justify their investigation was that the president had gotten a few BJs from some willing woman and lied about it.

BIG FUCKING DEAL!!!!!!!!!

I would say the same regardless of who was president. The amount of time and money that was wasted on persecuting these two people was positively shameful. How much more could his administration have accomplished if they hadn't a special prosecutor hounding them and their staffers for years?????

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass who is sleeping with whom as long as everyone concerned is a willing adult. Fuck the fake morality of this country!!!!

:grr:

[mmonk]

212. Listen to Turley in regards to what?