Text 36693, 65 rader
Skriven 2016-09-19 14:50:26 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 36589 av Tim Richardson (5258.fidonet_fidonews)
Ärende: Hillary Clinton's Hea
=============================
Hello Tim,

 TR>>> There wasn't any `impeachment' for Nixon. He resigned.

 AP>> Nixon wolud have been impeached by congress and the senate... the
 AP>> evidence was OVERWHEALMINGLY against her.

 TR>>> The only president ever `impeached' was Wiulliam Jefferson Clinton.

 AP>> This is not true... Andrew Johnson was impeached by congress as
 AP>> well... but like WJC the senate did not uphold it.

 LL>> Unlike Bill Clinton, Andrew Johnson was not an elected president.
 LL>> Even though both presidents had been impeached by the House, they
 LL>> both remained in office having been acquitted by the Senate.

 TR> THAT'S what it was! Johnson was impeached but had not been `elected'!
 TR> He took over after Lincoln was murdered.

Lincoln was executed, the victim of a conspiracy.  Others were
also targeted, such as Secretary of State Seward, who was wounded
but survived.  Four of the perpetrators were later caught, tried,
convicted, and hanged, including one woman.  Andrew Johnson was
also targeted, but was not at the location he was supposed to be
at, changing his location at the last moment upon being informed
about the attack on Seward.  There is even some suggestion that
Johnson may have been in on it.

 TR> Bill Clinton is the only ELECTED president ever impeached!

Special Prosecutor Ken Starr had gathered the evidence, and
it was stored for members of Congress to view.  However, nobody
bothered examining the evidence.  So what did it matter?  The
president got a blowjob.  Everybody knew it.  And nobody cared.
The whole thing was about politics, not a criminal act.

How does a president getting a blowjob qualify as being guilty
of "high crimes and misdemeanors"?  It certainly isn't treason.
Although maybe to his spouse.  But hey.  Maybe she does the same
thing.  It's called having an open marriage.

Should we convict a president based on their moral shortcomings?
Whose morals are we talking about?  Mine, or yours?  US Senator
David Vitter was screwing whores in DC and the French Quarter
and yet Republicans chose not to do a darned thing.  Why?  Because
Louisiana had a Demcoratic governor at the time.  Had Louisiana
had a Republican governor, US Senator Vitter would have been thrown
under the bus by his own party.

See how that works?  Politics has nothing to do with morals.
It is all about power.  A Democratic governor would have likely
appointed a Democrat to replace Vitter.  A Republican governor
would have likely appointed a Republican to replace Vitter.

Vitter may have been a traitor to his wife.  But notice she
stood by his side, even after his many affairs with whores in
DC and New Orleans.  Not really much different than Clinton.
Except that Bill never had to pay for his (as far as I know).

Not sure about Hillary.  Depends on what is found in those emails.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)