English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I the great and mighty clinton was impeached?

2006-11-27 15:19:35 · 18 answers · asked by IMPEACHED! 2 in Politics & Government Politics

18 answers

I have no doubt that they will try. Hopefully there are enough rational Dems (I can't believe I just said that) to stop it.

2006-11-27 15:21:48 · answer #1 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 22 5

Wow. in accordance to Don C, we'd want to continually drag him out bare and lynch him instant. To heck with an impeachment. IMHO, there is no longer a lot there to justify impeachment. he's made difficult calls, no longer all of that were impressive. that's SOP for administration although. no longer everyone will agree or perhaps understand reason for his judgements. to boot to, person-friendly persons don't have adequate archives to make an recommended determination. e.g. Going into Iraq became the impressive element to do strategically. it isn't customary, although that's the right determination from a lengthy-time period attitude. we are at conflict now- no longer with someone usa- yet with an ideology. it really is a tricky time certainly. it would help if there have been a lot less partisan bitching and extra knowledge of the topic.

2016-11-29 21:06:06 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

someone actually said "clinton was not impeached, no president has ever been." I would switch parties in an instant if I saw someone on my side saying something that idiotic. I sure love how people say all he did was have sex. the whole lying to congress thing slips through the cracks. And then they say Bush lied to congress about WMD but yet all the Dems said Iraq had them too. I didnt see any Reps in with Clinton saying yes, he didnt have sexual relations with that woman; did you?

2006-11-27 15:26:24 · answer #3 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 5 3

Well... you, as you put it, got impeached for lying under oath, not for having sex with a woman. Bush is trying to protect the lives of American citizens by attempting to prevent a repeat of 9/11.

You tell me which is worse.

2006-11-27 15:32:33 · answer #4 · answered by asylum31 6 · 3 3

I don't think the Dems are going to waste time and money on a no win proposition, like trying to prove the unprovable. Bush has not committed a crime and just because a bunch of Bush haters want to hurt him, doesn't mean congress is going to waste its time.
BTW Clinton was impeached, he was just not found guilty.

2006-11-27 15:25:42 · answer #5 · answered by dakota29575 4 · 3 4

No, he will not be impeached. Nancy Pelosi has said that that is not on the agenda. He will just serve out the rest of his term as the useless dead weight that he is.
Clinton should never have been impeached. What he did was nothing compared to the lives ended and ruined by Bush.

2006-11-27 15:23:41 · answer #6 · answered by notyou311 7 · 2 5

They would not dare try they are not nearly enough Radical Liberals to try it, most of the Democrats that were elected are of the so cold Reagan Democrat mode, not to mention it takes 66 Senators to get a conviction.

2006-11-27 15:54:27 · answer #7 · answered by asmith1022_2006 5 · 0 2

They need evidence & they have none. Not liking the President's choices does not make them illegal. They are trying for payback but it is not going to work as they need 2/3 vote in Congress & they barely have 1/2. 2/3 is bigger than 1/2 for those who do not do math.

2006-11-27 15:42:11 · answer #8 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 2 3

Clinton was not impeached, no president ever has been, but if any were deserving it would be Bush because he broke the fourth amendment, Clinton could not keep it in his pants. Which is worse?

2006-11-27 15:22:12 · answer #9 · answered by smartass 3 · 4 6

no, because you lied and that resulted in the deaths of thousands of young american soldiers unnecessarily...BTW, you also broke the law with the secret wiretaps, the outing of a covert CIA agent for political reprisal, the abuse of prisoners, the no-bid contracts for your friends, and the secret "energy policy" meetings in the White House

2006-11-27 15:41:20 · answer #10 · answered by cwdc 3 · 1 3

No, it is because he too was getting off in the White House. He just gets off on world domination. He also lied about it.

2006-11-27 15:35:11 · answer #11 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers