Gary Johnson said:

---

What law did Clinton break?

---

Perjury. He lied under oath in a video deposition.

Would that be a "high crime or misdemeanor"? I was pretty young don't remember much.

Gary Johnson said:

---

What law did Clinton break?

---

Perjury
Obstruction of Justice

Specifically, Starr reported:

Quote:

---

There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:
1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.
4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.
5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.
6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.
8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.
9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.
10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.
11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report#cite_note-8][8][/url]

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Would that be a "high crime or misdemeanor"? I was pretty young don't remember much.

---

Do your own research homie. Asking dumb questions makes you look dumb.

The Ukraine quid pro quo could result in Trump prosecuted multiple ways: election law violations, bribery / extortion, or Hatch Act criminal violations.

And the Ukraine stuff doesn't even include the other ongoing investigations and potential indictments Trump is facing for tax fraud, insurance fraud, bank fraud, paying off Stormy Daniels, and multiple counts of obstruction of justice from the SCO investigation.

(But nothing was illegal!)

This is very reminiscent of 1974-75. With so many different crimes and coverups going on: at some point the dam inevitably breaks, just like it did with Nixon.

Gary Johnson said:

---

What law did Clinton break? Lying about a BJ?

---

We cool with lying to a grand jury about anything?

Turns out it wasn't enough to impeach, but its definitely a crime.

I don't think it warranted removal. Just like this possible current campaign finance violation of trumps.

MetoliusAg said:

---

The Ukraine quid pro quo could result in Trump prosecuted multiple ways: election law violations, bribery / extortion, or Hatch Act criminal violations.

And the Ukraine stuff doesn't even include the other ongoing investigations and potential indictments Trump is facing for tax fraud, insurance fraud, bank fraud, paying off Stormy Daniels, and multiple counts of obstruction of justice from the SCO investigation.

(But nothing was illegal!)

This is very reminiscent of 1974-75. With so many different crimes and coverups going on: at some point the dam inevitably breaks, just like it did with Nixon.

---

None of us give a **** what happens to trump when he leaves office in 2025. He's there to enact our policy. Once he can no longer do that he's useless.

Get it through your thick skull. Policy is all that matters.

Do you have a real job? Just curious.

Rockdoc said:

---

Do you have a real job? Just curious.

---

POTD. And a very fair question.

I would love to hear (or read transcripts) of Obama's calls to foreign leaders. Oh wait... those were kept quiet.

Sine poena nulla lex.

Wendy 1990 said:

---

I would love to hear (or read transcripts) of Obama's calls to foreign leaders. Oh wait... those were kept quiet.

---

No way Obama would do anything like this. Lol.

What did the media do for those 8 years anyway?

MetoliusAg said:

---

The Ukraine quid pro quo could result in Trump prosecuted multiple ways: election law violations, bribery / extortion, or Hatch Act criminal violations.

Presidents extort foreign countries all the time. Every trade negotiation or tariff is extortion. Asking for a criminal investigation is clearly legal under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.

Bribery & Election law - Supporting a criminal investigation is neither a "thing of value" for either case.

Hatch Act does not apply to presidential powers to pursue criminal investigations.


And the Ukraine stuff doesn't even include the other ongoing investigations and potential indictments Trump is facing for tax fraud, insurance fraud, bank fraud, paying off Stormy Daniels, and multiple counts of obstruction of justice from the SCO investigation.


Trump has been audited by the IRS every year, seriously doubt you got much of a claim there. Bank fraud shows you ignorance on property evaluation. Stormy Daniels: See John Edwards defense, just because Cohen is an idiot who pled guilty to a non-crime doesn't prove anything.

Obstruction of Justice was not found by the Special counsel. Compare Mueller report who couldn't even bring himself to say a crime occurred to the Starr Report who clearly outline the crimes committed by Clinton. Indictment isn't need, Mueller WOULDNT SAY OBSTRUCTION OCCURED/


(But nothing was illegal!) <--- Once again the only true thing you said in this nonsense post

---

Bo Darville said:

---

I don't think it warranted removal. Just like this possible current campaign finance violation of trumps.

---

Bingo, Bo. That's the only semi-plausible rationale and defense remaining at the moment for Trump and his supporters.

There's no longer any doubt what Trump, Rudy, and Mulvaney did, regarding Ukraine.

"It was wrong of Trump, but it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment" is the political cover the GOP Senate will use to vote not guilty....unless a bunch of other impeachable offenses get uncovered in the next 3 months.

Do you have a real job? Just curious.

Nothing he did was illegal

None of what you are offering is anything but biased liberal opinion

MetoliusAg said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

I don't think it warranted removal. Just like this possible current campaign finance violation of trumps.

---

Bingo, Bo. That's the only semi-plausible rationale and defense remaining at the moment for Trump and his supporters.

There's no longer any doubt what Trump, Rudy, and Mulvaney did, regarding Ukraine.

"It was wrong of Trump, but it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment" is the political cover the GOP Senate will use to vote not guilty....unless a bunch of other impeachable offenses get uncovered in the next 3 months.

---

Nope. Senate will clear him because no crimes have occurred.


By all means, impeach him for partisan nonsense. See how that fairs on the ballot next year.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

I don't think it warranted removal. Just like this possible current campaign finance violation of trumps.

---

Bingo, Bo. That's the only semi-plausible rationale and defense remaining at the moment for Trump and his supporters.

There's no longer any doubt what Trump, Rudy, and Mulvaney did, regarding Ukraine.

"It was wrong of Trump, but it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment" is the political cover the GOP Senate will use to vote not guilty....unless a bunch of other impeachable offenses get uncovered in the next 3 months.

---

I said "possible" assuming your side can produce any actual evidence. Which so far they haven't.

All this is for nothing anyway. Senate won't convict for anything.

aginlakeway said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Do you have a real job? Just curious.

---

POTD. And a very fair question.

---

I'm A&M class of '77 and retired.

And you, aginlakeway?

And you, Rockdoc?

Class of 74 retired. Glad to see you actually worked at one time. Why don't you get an Ag tag? Oh never mind.

He still won't tell us what law was violated

All he's offering is opinions that say "if you really, really hate trump and stretch your imagination you can maybe see how this might be a violation if you totally ignore the actual statute and intent of this law"

8 years of defending the **** that Obama and his corrupt admin and DOJ did, and THIS is what outraged the left.

He did above:

Campaign Finance
Bribery/Extortion
Hatch Act


Other backups:
Tax Fraud
Bank Fraud
Stormy Payments
Obstruction of Justice


All laughable and un-alleged by their hero: Robert Mueller

He knows it's just hate driven opinion and fake news. He also knows his posting days are numbered because of how this is all going to end up.

Strreeeeeeeetcccchhhhhhh the law, eh? If that was the case, a POTUS can't do foreign policy AT ALL if the results achieved might possibly make him look better to voters unless he is already a second term president.

Such an idiotic reach.

Quote:

---

All this is for nothing anyway.

---

No, Bo, it isn't all being done for nothing. There are important principles and democratic norms at stake. But as you have indicated numerous times, you don't care what laws Trump breaks and crimes Trump commits.

Quote:

---

Senate won't convict for anything.

---

Not true. It depends on what other criminal behavior is uncovered. There is a point in the political equation where even Senators of deep red states have to think twice on how far out on a limb they're willing to go in supporting a corrupt Potus.

Socialism and attacks on gun owners are worse than any crime you've accused trump of. You can't talk that one away.

What did he do that was corrupt?

And again, Trump is a cash cow for the GOP senators right now. They may clear him even if it's shown he murdered a baby in Times Square.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Quote:

---

All this is for nothing anyway.

---

No, Bo, it isn't all being done for nothing. There are important principles and democratic norms at stake. But as you have indicated numerous times, you don't care what laws Trump breaks and crimes Trump commits.

Quote:

---

Senate won't convict for anything.

---

Not true. It depends on what other criminal behavior is uncovered. There is a point in the political equation where even Senators of deep red states have to think twice on how far out on a limb they're willing to go in supporting a corrupt Potus.

---

So, it's ok for any POTUS to be subjected to fishing expeditions trying to "uncover" possible crimes?

Let's just start this from day 1 for every President. Will that make you happy?

Rockdoc said:

---

What did he do that was corrupt?

---

Won an election against a democrat. That's the heart of all of this.

You need to know Stephenvilles history. He attacked Bush with the same vigor. And he turned on McCain in a heartbeat.

He only cares about advancing liberalism and always has. But at least I'm honest about my intentions.

Don't forget, the government was using the most ruthless Special Counsel, Mueller, with an entire cast of Dems headed by the most corrupt, vile, criminal attorney in Washington--Andrew Weissman.

They threatened the family of every personj they talked to in order to get the information they wanted, but only Jerome Corsi stood up to them. Weissman went after wives, children, mothers and fathers if he didn't get what he wanted. And knucklehead class of '74 "etcetera" who actually belongs in Austin with the sips, believes Mueller and Weissman didn't find a crime because they weren't good enough.

Well, this is the same, part II. I'm glad you stay here to discuss, and I'm glad other Ags are kind enough to engage, but there is literally NOTHING they can say that will satiate your desire, which isn't criminal in nature, but pure hatred, much worse than any Klan member ever had.

Yep, youre hatred is on the level of the Klan, because that's all you have is hate!!! Hell of a way to live!

Edit, sorry duece, the reply was to you, but I ended up mainly talking to etcetera. I apologize!

Bo Darville said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

What did he do that was corrupt?

---

Won an election against a democrat. That's the heart of all of this.

You need to know Stephenvilles history. He attacked Bush with the same vigor. And he turned on McCain in a heartbeat.

He only cares about advancing liberalism and always has. But at least I'm honest about my intentions.

---

I blocked him. Just like I did the other now banned usernames.

Yet he keeps coming back ...

Oh I remember his past. I've witnessed his hate. But I haven't seen him profess his love for the policies of his party's candidates.