Well, we should probably talk about Bill Clinton

[crazed_hoosier2]

We don't know if sexual harassment was an impeachable offense because no one tried. There are no lists of what is or is not an impeachable offense, congress makes that decision. I am not sure they would have voted that way, probably not, but the question we should determine is should it be?

I don't rightly know. But the point is that, while there's some question whether presidents can be impeached for having a consensual sexual relationship with a subordinate, there's little question that the charges levied against him very much were impeachable offenses.

Bill Clinton didn't remain in office because the Republicans screwed up. He remained in office because Congressional Democrats weren't willing to bear the likely political costs of sacrificing one of their own -- especially by siding with the execrable Gingrich & Co.

And it's folly to say that times have changed. If the same events occurred today, I'm confident it would end similarly. The stakes are, rightly or wrongly, perceived as being too high.

 

[iuwclurker1]

And it's folly to say that times have changed. If the same events occurred today, I'm confident it would end similarly. The stakes are, rightly or wrongly, perceived as being too high.

Times have changed. Politically we've fallen while socially we've risen.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I guess 73 percent of us were liberal Democrats back then.

More irrelevant dumbassary. You said the republican impeachment made the conversation about sexual harassment different. That’s first a silly comment and second shame on those liberal democrats who used the impeachment to tolerate workplace harassment; that apparently includes you.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Times have changed. Politically we've fallen while socially we've risen.

Times have only changed in the swamp. Ask Clarence Thomas. Those who live in the swamp have awakened to the notion that liberal democrats should held to the same standards as conservative Republicans.

 

[Rockfish1]

More irrelevant dumbassary. You said the republican impeachment made the conversation about sexual harassment different. That’s first a silly comment and second shame on those liberal democrats who used the impeachment to tolerate workplace harassment; that apparently includes you.

Here's what I said:

For context, Bill Clinton's job approval rating peaked at 73 percent in the week he was impeached. Public attitudes at the time were affected not only by Clinton's conduct, but also by that of his persecutors. Maybe if out-of-control Republicans hadn't impeached a popular president for lying about a blowjob the conversation might have been different.
​

There wasn't any significant conversation about sexual harrassment at the time. There are a number of reasons for that. One of them is that Lewinsky herself said that the encounters were consensual. Another is that out-of-control Republicans made lying about a blowjob the issue. (Presumably they thought that would frame up an impeachment better than a sexual harrassment claim that Lewinsky wasn't making.) As a result of these (and other) factors, Bill Clinton enjoyed a 73 percent job approval rating during the week the House impeached him. Obviously it wasn't just liberal Democrats who didn't buy into the Republican jihad. (We were calling you guys "Shiite Republicans" back then.)

You've responded by distorting what I said amid the baseless partisan bullshit that inevitably characterizes your lazy dishonest posts. You're a shitty poster. Please go away.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

There wasn't any significant conversation about sexual harrassment at the time.

Sure there was. But in the swamp outrage about harasment was only directed at conservatives. Ask Clarence Thomas. And Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy clan? Oh, my.

 

[Rockfish1]

Sure there was. But in the swamp outrage about harasment was only directed at conservatives. Ask Clarence Thomas. And Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy clan? Oh, my.

Why did Republicans care so little about Clinton's supposed sexual harrassment that they failed to even mention it during the impeachment proceedings? Were they part of the liberal conspiracy?

You're a partisan hack.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Why did Republicans care so little about Clinton's supposed sexual harrassment that they failed to even mention it during the impeachment proceedings? Were they part of the liberal conspiracy?

You're a partisan hack.

Because that isn't why he was impeached.

You made a dumbass point, I called you on it, and now you are slithering all over the board trying to explain yourself.

You've responded by distorting what I said amid the baseless partisan bullshit that inevitably characterizes your lazy dishonest posts. You're a shitty poster. Please go away.

You said what you said. You saying I'm a lazy shitty poster is as old as the Clinton impeachment and you are still slthering.

 

[Rockfish1]

Because that isn't why he was impeached.

He wasn't impeached for sexual harrassment because House Republicans didn't care enough about any supposed sexual harrassment to charge him with it. Again, did Republicans fail to press sexual harrassment charges against Clinton because they were part of the liberal conspiracy?

You're a shitty poster, as your lazy dishonest posts illustrate.

 

[37Hoosier]

Times have only changed in the swamp. Ask Clarence Thomas. Those who live in the swamp have awakened to the notion that liberal democrats should held to the same standards as conservative Republicans.

Wow, that is a very very very low bar for standards...in fact it is basically non-existent. Clearly the GOP has abandoned all ethical standards following this clown of a president. Party above all...

 

[zeke4ahs]

Times have only changed in the swamp. Ask Clarence Thomas. Those who live in the swamp have awakened to the notion that liberal democrats should held to the same standards as conservative Republicans.

Last time I looked, Clarence Thomas was a sitting Supreme Court Justice. So what's the point again?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Nice to see how badly this thread got shit on today.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Nice to see how badly this thread got shit on today.

Too bad I wasn't part of it, so you'd have a legitimate reason to clean it up.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Okay, back on track. Kirsten Gilibrand has gone on record saying Bill Clinton should have resigned. Non trivial.

That may seem like some revisionist history — a trivial bit of 20/20 hindsight on Gillibrand's part — but it has massive implications for the Clintons' legacy. Suddenly, other Democrats will be asked whether they agree with Gillibrand's comments that the former president should have resigned. If those Democrats are 2020 hopefuls, they'll be wary of letting Gillibrand keep the spotlight on this issue. If they're Democrats more broadly, they'll be conscious of looking like they're giving Bill Clinton a pass on the allegations against him even as they say that accusers should be believed. At this particular moment in time, giving life to a debate over Clinton's alleged sexual misconduct alongside all the others could lead just about anywhere.
​

People want Hillary to ride off into the sunset but to me the onus is now on her to support Gilibrand's position. Really puts her in an interesting position.

 

[UncleMark]

People want Hillary to ride off into the sunset but to me the onus is now on her to support Gilibrand's position. Really puts her in an interesting position.

If she's confronted with this at every turn, maybe she'll finally fade away (and hopefully take Bill with her). Fine by me.