politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Clinton out-lawyered the GOP and they were pissed. The legal definition they gave didn't include what he and Monica were doing.
Also, that relationship didn't even start (I don't think they had even met) until after the investigation had started because of a land deal gone bad.
Trying to compare Clinton's impeachment with Trump's is asinine for many reasons.
Trump and Clinton’s impeachments were so very different, absolutely.
What’s funny is that the same Republicans flipped their positions. Old 1990s Lindsey Graham said that it doesn’t have to be a literal crime to impeach a president if they disgraced the office. (Clinton did commit a felony with the lying under oath part, although Republicans cared way more about the sex scandal at the time.) 2020 Lindsey Graham said what Trump did wasn’t a felony and therefore not impeachable. He’s one of the worst slime balls in congress and that’s saying something.
No, you're mistaken. I can assure you, Lindsey Graham has no balls.
That's my point though. The legal definition they gave him to work with didn't include what he did with Monica. What he did wasn't ok, and I'm not defending him personally, but it wasn't a lie by the legal definition of "sexual relations." The GOP was just on a fishing expedition to find anything they could on him.
Baloney. What he did counted as sexual relations or “sexual relationship” as he testified to. Then he tried to claim that since he was merely pleasuring her and didn’t orgasm himself, it didn’t count. They had to drag Lewinsky back to testify further that Clinton was still lying.
Clinton tried to split hairs to pretend he didn’t lie. It didn’t work.
That's not what happened at all.
He claimed that she had sexual relations with him but he didn't have sexual relations with her because the special investigator defined it based on who touched whose genitals.
http://www.languageandlaw.org/PERJURY.HTM
That correction doesn’t make it any better. It’s still perjury and she still had to testify that he lied even under that definition.
Well played…
And she testified that under his redefinition he still lied. Don’t forget him pleasuring her with the cigar etc.