AND that Republican apologists have no shame in defending right-wing hypocrites?
On a question about Newt Gingrich's hypocrisy during his questioning Clinton's extramarital affair while HE was having one himself at the time>
SHIRAZ: (03-22-2007)
Clinton got into trouble for perjury, a crime, not an affair.its why he was disbarred and impeached. perjury during a sexual assault case. newt was not charged with sexual assualt or perjury....its not the same thing. retard.
Retard indeed. If a Democrat has an affair he just HAS to get grilled for it by a Republican in the first place. And why of course, that Republican turns out to be a blatant hypocrite.
Why am I not surprized?
2007-03-23 04:09:19 · 19 answers · asked by Da Man 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Clinton carried out his full term!
FACT.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070322091018AApusZP
2007-03-23 04:15:50 · update #1
Seems like everyone is a hypocrite now-a-days. Especially, Republicans. They never admit to affairs.
2007-03-23 04:14:54 · answer #1 · answered by T S 5 · 1⤊ 6⤋
Clinton was impeached. Impeachment is bringing a charge against the president and presenting it to the senate. It does not imply that the person was removed from office, simply tried before the senate. I don't know what disbarred means and I'm too lazy to look it up.
I digress: extramarital affairs is a morality issue, it's no one else's business but the parties involved. Same goes for Clinton. Lying to the country is a much different matter, even over something so simple and quite frankly no one else's business. Hypocritical for me to say this, sure, because I won't doubt that Bush only spouts truthiness (half-truths). The difference is whether or not these things come out on the record and under oath.
2007-03-23 04:15:43 · answer #2 · answered by Pfo 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
each and each guy or female who spoke back this question necessary to income interior the previous answering Clinton perjury substitute into the comparable as Scooter libby's comparable ingredient now not concerning to to the lawsuit yet with the aid of mendacity decrease than oath. JFK substitute into coated up via making use of the click and a democratic congress. Clinton's best difficulty substitute into the quite a few whitewater (human beings served time for the coverup) gennifer flowers, paula jones, kathleem willey just to call some. the republicans might desire to now not have manufactored that many
2016-10-19 10:29:17 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is your beef?
The other poster is,in fact, correct.
You, in fact, are not.
This is what happens when you depend on those leftist hate-blogs for information.
Mr Clinton was disbarred - this is easily confirmed.
The state of Arkansas stripped him of his law licence and banned him from practicing law NOT because he had an affair (why do you people keep mischaracterizing the truth?)
but because he was found GUILTY of suborning perjury and manipulating the justice system through witness tampering and lying under oath.
PLEASE introduce yourself to the FACTS.
It is impossible to take you seriously when you obviously won't take the time to educate yourself - this is historical fact...it is not open to interpretation.
2007-03-23 04:21:31 · answer #4 · answered by Garrett S 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Impeachment doesn't mean loosing office (Nixon was impeached and then resigned) - It means being brought to trial with the senate.
im·peach·ment /ɪmˈpitʃmənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-peech-muhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the impeaching of a public official before an appropriate tribunal.
2. (in Congress or a state legislature) the presentation of formal charges against a public official by the lower house, trial to be before the upper house.
2007-03-23 04:17:46 · answer #5 · answered by daisyk 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
you should stop being a liberal for a second and look at this with an open mind .
1. both had an affair
2. they both were caught
3. one was caught and lied about it under oath
4. the other was caught and admitted it
surely you see the difference . of course all of this is irrelevant consindering it was years ago and personal issues that has nothing to do with government
2007-03-23 04:18:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Problem is he is right. Clinton DID get disbarred AND impeached. You must be like 14 not to remember. Open a book and close the laptop because your ignorance is astounding.
2007-03-23 04:14:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Clinton did get disbarred and impeached. Yet he still carried out the rest of his term.
Most Republicans and dems know this
2007-03-23 04:20:24 · answer #8 · answered by TRUE PATRIOT 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
why is it you liberals refuse to acknowledge that Clinton was a piece of garbage?
He had many accusations of sexual assault, sexual misconduct, and sexual harassment. He was being investigated for those things when he committed perjury (specifically the paula jones harassment case at the time) He WAS NOT being investigated for adultry.
He WAS impeched!
He WAS disbarred, which means he was no longer allowed to practice law. I believe it was a temporary (x number of years) disbarment.
Stop calling people liars, when you obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about.
2007-03-23 04:17:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
He was impeached, He was disbarred, He was convicted of perjury. He was not removed from office.
2007-03-23 04:26:52 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Clinton was not impeached. He went through the impeachment process and but was not removed from office. How did that happen? They got him to testify under oath and then used his words against him. That is why the Republicans do not want to testify under oath, because they know that then they can be held accountable for their actions.
2007-03-23 04:17:36 · answer #11 · answered by diogenese_97 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋