American Politics

[kkck]

Not really. Clinton's violations aren't even sufficient grounds for impeachment, as far as I know. Looking at it from a purely legal standpoint, Clinton's impeachment was justified insofar as a way to facilitate Lewinsky if she wanted reparations and a court trial. (I don't think she even wanted anything from Clinton?? Someone correct me on this, if I'm wrong.) But if you asked me if Clinton's affair was a legal justification for impeachment, I would say no.

I brought up the Clinton scandal because I'm wondering what their strategy here is going to be like. As far as I remember, Clinton was acquitted at the Senate level, so having gone through the same situation 20 years ago, I am wondering just what they have in mind about this. I might be remembering things wrong, so hopefully someone can clarify this.

From what I've read so far the situation with the clinton impeachment was more or less like this:

-Whitewater becomes a thing and an independent counsel (ken star) is assigned to investigate the case.
- Ken star investigation does not find anything concerning whitewater. They do find out about lewinsky and present that to trial.
- Bill Clinton testifies and his famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
- Bill clinton gets impeached for lying under oath and obstruction.
- Bill clinton is acquitted by the senate.

I am no legal scholar but what I've read on this so far paints a murky picture. My understanding so far is that clinton did not do anything impeachable at the time. But there is the consideration that impeachment is a political trial so that makes things more complicated. clinton's lie was in response to how sexual relations were legally defined within the context of proceedings at the time. And the point he made was that he didn't lie according to the legal definition he was presented with at the time (which if I am understanding correctly did not include oral sex). Of course, in non legal terms he absolutely had sex with her so this is clinton kinda trying to have it both ways. As in, "legally" he told the truth but.... he didn't literally tell the truth. He tried to exploit a loophole which he probably could have exploited in a different type of trial which was less public and it cost him.

from then on things get more complicated.... Did or didn't clinton commit perjury? Does the monica lewinsky stuff has anything to do with anything? He was being investigated for financial crimes, star found nothing, but "got him" over an improper but otherwise consensual relationship with an intern which played into a different civil case against clinton.

 

[xi0]

Iran wanted revenge. I guess this is to show that they're not pushovers and have no problem with retaliating if we keep messing about.

Does it show they're not pushovers? All it did to me was tip their hand as far as technological capabilities go. The assumption at first is these attacks were from within Iraq and some were surprised to find out they were launched from Iran. Iran isn't interested in playing by the rules, as they've fund terrorism and threaten to kill innocent people in Dubai and Israel. We can all disagree with Trump's judgment here without painting us as the ones "messing about". Iran has been doing exactly that in Iraq and other countries for years now.

But if you asked me if Clinton's affair was a legal justification for impeachment, I would say no.

I sort of disagree, even moreso nowadays when people are more consciously aware about how power dynamics work. Then this was compounded by him lying under oath to congress, which is a felony.

Let's just be honest with ourselves here, if Trump had a sexual encounter with a young, female intern in the oval office today and then lied about it under oath, he would be treated exactly how Clinton was treated, if not even more severely given all of his other fuckups.

 

[M3J]

Does it show they're not pushovers? All it did to me was tip their hand as far as technological capabilities go. The assumption at first is these attacks were from within Iraq and some were surprised to find out they were launched from Iran. Iran isn't interested in playing by the rules, as they've fund terrorism and threaten to kill innocent people in Dubai and Israel. We can all disagree with Trump's judgment here without painting us as the ones "messing about". Iran has been doing exactly that in Iraq and other countries for years now.

It does show that, I guess, because they're showing USA can't do whatever it likes.

To be fair though, USA wasn't playing by the rules either when we attacked an airport where there are innocent civilians, and one of the biggest issues ME has with us how the soldiers rape and murder the people.

 

[Newkerzy]

I sort of disagree, even moreso nowadays when people are more consciously aware about how power dynamics work. Then this was compounded by him lying under oath to congress, which is a felony.

Let's just be honest with ourselves here, if Trump had a sexual encounter with a young, female intern in the oval office today and then lied about it under oath, he would be treated exactly how Clinton was treated, if not even more severely given all of his other fuckups.

Yeah, as far as everything else went, Clinton was rightfully acquitted. It's the "lying under oath" part that I was fuzzy about, thanks. I come from law school, but I'm not that familiar with the US legal system, so I was worried I'm misremembering some of the legal facts surrounding Clinton.

Now the question is, after having gone through the Clinton experience, what exactly is the Dems' angle here? They know from past experience that the Senate is just going to acquit Trump, thanks to their numbers, since they did it before. It's not like they can complain about it right now.

 

[xi0]

It does show that, I guess, because they're showing USA can't do whatever it likes.

To be fair though, USA wasn't playing by the rules either when we attacked an airport where there are innocent civilians

We absolutely can though if we wanted to. The retaliation was expected but it seems most likely intentionally lame.

They didn't attack an airport, his convoy was hit by a drone strike after they left the airport. No civilians were harmed.

and one of the biggest issues ME has with us how the soldiers rape and murder the people.

What? Whose soldiers do that?

Yeah, as far as everything else went, Clinton was rightfully acquitted. It's the "lying under oath" part that I was fuzzy about, thanks. I come from law school, but I'm not that familiar with the US legal system, so I was worried I'm misremembering some of the legal facts surrounding Clinton.

Now the question is, after having gone through the Clinton experience, what exactly is the Dems' angle here? They know from past experience that the Senate is just going to acquit Trump, thanks to their numbers, since they did it before. It's not like they can complain about it right now.

Not sure I would describe it as "rightfully acquitted". The Democrats controlled the Senate at the time, so the articles of impeachment probably would have needed to be more severe in order to have him removed. He did commit a crime in lying and the actual act that started the entire situation is pretty damn unbecoming of the office. Granted, it's peanuts compared to what Trump has been accused of doing though.

There's no angle needed really IMO. The Democrats are just doing what should be done, whether he's removed or not isn't the point. History will show who was acting in good faith and who wasn't. If McConnell wants to obfuscate and gimp the trial, then his legacy will reflect him doing that. I mean, his legacy will already be chock-full of obstruction and bold hypocrisy, so I doubt he really cares.

 

[M3J]

We absolutely can though if we wanted to. The retaliation was expected but it seems most likely intentionally lame.

They didn't attack an airport, his convoy was hit by a drone strike after they left the airport. No civilians were harmed.

But not without some repercussions, and we might not even have allies willing to back us up.

From what I've read, it was a drone strike at an airport.

What? Whose soldiers do that?

Ours.

 

[kkck]

Welp, it's been a couple days since the attack... so....

My first takeaway is that Trump "won". As in, the US killed iran top's general and all iran did about it was plan an attack without casualties to lie to their about about killing soldiers apparently. And trump is milking this for all it's worth. A part that did catch my attention is that iran's government did make the claim that they killed a number of US soldiers... I am not too familiar with the nuances of how iran is governed internally but it seems like a sensible assumption that iran does not actually care that much what countries outside of it think... So like with NK we likely have to assume that the target audience for the stuff they do is no one outside iran.... Including the recent bombing.

And... while fear of war with iran seems to have subsided the situation doesn't seem to have changed all that much. I've read a couple articles suggesting that iran might be more willing to go to the negotiating table but... I can't say that's quite my read on the situation yet. Negotiating should imply some manner of trust and trust between the two countries seems to be pretty much as low as it can possibly be. And trump's iran policy is not clear to anyone, specially iran, so its not like there is an obvious path forward to anyone. To me the situation in general looks less stable than it was before the general was killed.

Another interesting bit is that the general who was assasinated was replaced by someone who, according to the reports I read, is a bigger extremist than the previous one. So.... iran basically doubled down on whatever the previous guy was doing.

It seems like there is a fair bit of skepticism regarding trump's claim that iran was planning attacks and whatnot. That's... good for a change. So far no US intelligence agencies have said this was the case (as far as I have read anyways) as far as I can tell and they certainly have not provided evidence of this.

 

[xi0]

But not without some repercussions, and we might not even have allies willing to back us up.

From what I've read, it was a drone strike at an airport.

It was a strike on a convoy leaving an airport, not in the airport itself.

Ours.

You really believe one the biggest issues facing people in the Middle East is worrying about getting raped or murdered by US Troops? What exactly is the basis for that?

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 9, 2020, Original Post Date: Jan 9, 2020 ---

It seems like there is a fair bit of skepticism regarding trump's claim that iran was planning attacks and whatnot. That's... good for a change. So far no US intelligence agencies have said this was the case (as far as I have read anyways) as far as I can tell and they certainly have not provided evidence of this.

I doubt we would ever get clarification on there being actionable intelligence or not. But it seems that Trump made the decision to kill him after he saw pictures of the aftermath of the Embassy attacks. Now he's claiming that there were plans to bomb that same embassy, which... I guess wouldn't necessarily be surprising. Iran are the ones backing the Shia militias there.

 

[Newkerzy]

Not sure I would describe it as "rightfully acquitted". The Democrats controlled the Senate at the time, so the articles of impeachment probably would have needed to be more severe in order to have him removed. He did commit a crime in lying and the actual act that started the entire situation is pretty damn unbecoming of the office. Granted, it's peanuts compared to what Trump has been accused of doing though.

There's no angle needed really IMO. The Democrats are just doing what should be done, whether he's removed or not isn't the point. History will show who was acting in good faith and who wasn't. If McConnell wants to obfuscate and gimp the trial, then his legacy will reflect him doing that. I mean, his legacy will already be chock-full of obstruction and bold hypocrisy, so I doubt he really cares.

If you wanted a textbook answer to Clinton's impeachment as far as the legal text goes, then yes, the Senate was correct in acquitting him. But that's only as far as anything outside Lewinsky/lying under oath goes. As for the lying under oath bit, I'm a bit on the fence about that, because it would really depend on the context. There's lying that you had an affair while in office, and there's lying about conspiring with a foreign (or worse, enemy) nation to take control of the presidency. Lying about your affair is a BIG CRINGE, at best. But lying about violating the constitution front and back is straight up indefensible, imo. So there you have it.

On a final note, Lewinsky didn't even want to be dragged into that mess, if I recall. But the GOP just went ahead and made her a political football.

 

[M3J]

You really believe one the biggest issues facing people in the Middle East is worrying about getting raped or murdered by US Troops? What exactly is the basis for that?

Yes. And the people living in Middle East are the basis for that, as many of them say or have shared how so many soldiers have killed and raped innocent people. They basically consider the troops terrorists, which makes sense. Even some vets have said they've done horrible things that they regret or witnessed horrible things.

 

[xi0]

If you wanted a textbook answer to Clinton's impeachment as far as the legal text goes, then yes, the Senate was correct in acquitting him. But that's only as far as anything outside Lewinsky/lying under oath goes. As for the lying under oath bit, I'm a bit on the fence about that, because it would really depend on the context. There's lying that you had an affair while in office, and there's lying about conspiring with a foreign (or worse, enemy) nation to take control of the presidency. Lying about your affair is a BIG CRINGE, at best. But lying about violating the constitution front and back is straight up indefensible, imo. So there you have it.

On a final note, Lewinsky didn't even want to be dragged into that mess, if I recall. But the GOP just went ahead and made her a political football.

The thing is, context doesn't really matter when we're talking about whether someone violated the law or not. Though of course, impeachment isn't truly a question of law, but politics. I don't think Clinton's actions were on the same level as what Trump has been accused of, but it's still a pretty big stain on his reputation and the office. I'm not really someone who says he didn't deserve to be impeached for it, regardless of how the GOP handled the situation, and I'm a Democrat.

Yes. And the people living in Middle East are the basis for that, as many of them say or have shared how so many soldiers have killed and raped innocent people. They basically consider the troops terrorists, which makes sense. Even some vets have said they've done horrible things that they regret or witnessed horrible things.

This seems pretty damn hyperbolic to me. Of course many would view them as occupiers and not have positive opinions of them but acting like rape/murder is something most of them are going around doing without any sort of facts/statistics is a bit asinine.

 

[xi0]

TheOnion remains on-point

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 4, 2020, Original Post Date: Feb 3, 2020 ---

Ah, the DNC showing again they've learned nothing at all. Neat.

 

[kkck]

FFS, just how stupid and incompetent can the democratic party be? Rather than learn anything at all from 2016 they have doubled down on the idiocy...

 

[xi0]

Buttigieg looks really bad after his antics last night. Acting like he won with 0% results in. Then come to find out, the app used to report caucus results was made worked on by the wife of one of his advisors and was funded by his campaign. Sanders takes the lead and it mysteriously stops working? Then he trots himself out on stage acting like he won. Even if all of that is 100% coincidental, he looked like a buffoon.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 4, 2020, Original Post Date: Feb 4, 2020 ---

 

[kkck]

So.... buttigieg who the iowa caucus.... with a narrow margin.. WTH is going on? Add to that, the sheer extent to which polls were off... trump's 2020 draws near....

 

[xi0]

I don't know, but at this point it's hard for me to see Buttigieg as anything but a corporatist worm.

 

[M3J]

This seems pretty damn hyperbolic to me. Of course many would view them as occupiers and not have positive opinions of them but acting like rape/murder is something most of them are going around doing without any sort of facts/statistics is a bit asinine.

To you. I'm more inclined to believe the people who actually experience this, though. Plus, some of the soldiers have been in the news for murdering and raping, and Trump apparently pardoned a murderer.



Trump was acquitted, which is not surprising at all. Love how his supporters are crying about Pelosi ripping up his speech and think that means he's innocent.

 

[xi0]

To you. I'm more inclined to believe the people who actually experience this, though. Plus, some of the soldiers have been in the news for murdering and raping, and Trump apparently pardoned a murderer.

Yeah, SOME. I know several people who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Painting them all in this way is completely out of touch with reality and offensive. Regardless of what you think about the operations there.

 

[M3J]

I only said some because I knew you'd be offended, but it seems many are like that. Don't get why you're so offended by actual citizens seeing our troops as terrorists when there are enough of them who rape and kill for no reason. Hell, for all we know, a good majority are like that, but it's just hidden better.

 

[xi0]

I only said some because I knew you'd be offended, but it seems many are like that. Don't get why you're so offended by actual citizens seeing our troops as terrorists when there are enough of them who rape and kill for no reason. Hell, for all we know, a good majority are like that, but it's just hidden better.

Because, your point in saying something like that is being inflammatory and not much else. You just admitted it yourself that it's bait.