President Clinton was impeached for 'lying' about sex, Herman Cain says mind your own business

[DainBramaged]

his sexual assaults are none of our business, it's the lame-stream media trying to torpedo his campaign.


President Clinton had sex with a consenting adult, Herman Cain is a sexual predator, and this is the best the Republican party has to offer?



Shame

[Atman]

1. Well, you can't impeach a guy from a campaign.

If the idiots in the Republican Party want to nominate a total loser like Cain, a sexual predator, a lying, anti-intellectual clown, then let them. That is their right and there is no law against it.

In fact, I whole-heartedly encourage it.

.

[Cid_B]

11. Also there is the whole issue of "proof"

At this point it is only an accusation.

[tabasco]

18. Eyewitness statements are a form of proof.

What do you want - a video?

[Cid_B]

25. Something...

It has to be more than an accusation

Corroborating statements from non partisan parties or a journal entry or email or something...

[opihimoimoi]

2. Cain is the best thing for the DEM Party for many obvious reasons

His presence is giving the PUB MASTERS Fits and Caniptions....

He will eventually lose causing the GOPers to lose Credibility and Respect.....

He qualies for the GOPer HALL OF SHAME for this YEAR....

[still_one]

3. He was impeached for committing perjury, also disbarred /nt

[DainBramaged]

6. He was impeached over technicalities and the word is

don't give me that Puke rationalization, read the Hunting of the President.

[still_one]

10. That is NOT a rationalization. There is no question they were trying to bring him down since he was

elected, from the whitewater and other made up fiascos, with the help of the MSM

In fact he knew exactly what the repukes were trying to do, which even amplifies what an idiot he was in how he handled it

It could be noted he was not convicted in the Sentate, but the actual impeachment charges of impeachment were perjury and obstruction of justice

That of course is nothing compared to the damage done by some of the legislation he signed.

He signed bills that removed most of the financial regulations that the repukes had started since reagan. His welfare reform act was a disgrace right from the pages of the rpukes handbook,
but probably the most damaging to the country, and the Democrats was the Telecommunications act of 2000, which gave rise to the corporate media

[DainBramaged]

17. An idiot? He wasn't and never will be a Bush.

Cya.

[coalition_unwilling]

23. +1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - You nail it! - n/t

[JoePhilly]

15. So, if Cain becomes President, the GOP House will spend millions investigating ...

these allegations ... and when he lies, again, which he has to do, since he's been lying all along ... the GOP's going to impeach hin, right?

In Clinton's case, no allegations had ever been filed ... no settlements made. But investigations were necessary.

Should be no different here if Cain were to become President.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Vermin Cain can say whatever he wants,

it ain't gonna go away.

Toss him another shovel, his is wearing out.

[Cirque du So-What]

5. Are you sure you want to go there?

Clinton's problems began earlier (cough*paulajones*cough), and he did pay a hefty settlement. O what a wicked web we weave...

[DainBramaged]

7. Here we go, let's pull the Dem down because it isn't enough to pull the Puke down

I'm there, and Clinton was a better President than Shrub or any of the assholes could ever hope to be.

[Cirque du So-What]

9. You misread me

Far from being my intention to 'pull the Dem down,' I prefer instead to not draw negative attention to Clinton's past peccadilloes. And although I agree that Clinton was a great president, I still disagree with some of his policies - most notably his endorsement of NAFTA, which has been hounding me like the Flying Dutchman where my gainful employment is concerned lo these many years.

[zbdent]

8. exactly was Cain's position in 1999?

I mean, aside from standing, with the woman on her knees ...

[OneGrassRoot]

12. That's the best question here. Was he one of the many...

who stood on that "moral" pedestal and acted holier than thou?

Yet it's the hypocrisy about anything deemed "moral" that gets me about most right-wingers, ever since the Moral Majority co-opted their party.

Criminality is a different story; everyone should condemn that, of course. I'm speaking of things like adultery, etc.

[Puzzledtraveller]

13. as credit to your post

If for nothing more than political cannon fodder it would be a waste of the publics attention span at this point anyway, if someone other than Cain would be destined to get the nomination, which I believe many of us here suspect the choice has already been made so that anything that may come out in the race when it really matters Obama vs Mittens, Mittens had better murdered someone for the public to give a crap. Partly why I believe Cain is an RNC sacrifical lamb. IMO

[seabeyond]

14. clinton was probably a pig, too. we found out a lot later. not well before election

i really have no need to defend clinton. he caused us a lot both in behavior and policy.

[GoCubsGo]

16. Actually, we DID know about it before the election...

IIRC, both Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones made their accusations before Clinton was elected. Furthermore, he already had a reputation as a philanderer. And, that is the rub here. The GOP incessantly hounded Clinton over that. Meanwhile, when one of their own is accused of far worse, they choose to ignore it, say "Meh. It's no big deal.", blame the victims, and blame liberals, blame everyone else but the guy being accused of the harassment and sexual assault. This isn't about Clinton. It's about Republican hypocrisy. There was a whole fucking "Character Counts" cottage industry that came out of Bill Clinton's extramarital activities. Apparently, it only applies to people who don't belong to the GOP, because I haven't heard a peep from them here. IOKIYAR.

[seabeyond]

19. i agree with you post. it is not about clinton. i am stating, that i am not overyly impressed

with clinton and his character. he is unique though, in different ways. and no, i think there might have been wuestion, but i dont think there was the certainty prior to election, that there is with cain. i dont want to make light of clinton, though, because i think he probably was a pig, too. and those men dont impress me much. i voted the second time BECAUSE of the right wing hypocrisy and unconstitutional behavior, imo.

[karynnj]

20. Give it time to sink in before you get carried away with outrage

In a poll this morning, 39% of REPUBLICANS believe the accusations. 53% of all people believe them. That had to come from a poll done before yesterday's accusation as it takes time to poll and get results. Yesterday, for the first time people had real charges and a face to connect to them. I suspect Cain will be completely out in 2 weeks - if not, he will be so damaged that his long shot to the nomination - much less the Presidency is gone.

As to Clinton, remember that in spite of the Flowers accusations, which were of a long term consensual affair, Clinton won the nomination and the Presidency - partly because the media helped him in early spring 1992 in defining this as the past and as not important. Before 1996, there were the Paula Jones accusations and they were really of the same nature as the charge against Cain. The media did not, pre 1986, give much coverage or credence to Jones' story. They did report it, but they quickly added all her links to the far right - diminishing the credibility.

The Cain charges have far more impact because there are at least 4 cases. That there were 4 independent accusations makes it harder to dismiss - though the right is trying!

Impeachment was a different thing. There was a Republican vendetta and it became clear that Clinton lied under oath on depositions done for the Paula Jones case that were looking into other possible Clinton actions towards low level female government employees. The Senate rejected this - not because they believed he did not lie, but because it failed to reach the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors", the definition of which is up to each Senator and is not more explicitly defined.

This came down to being a political decision. The Republicans gambled that the nation would be so offended that Clinton had acted in the inappropriate way he had with a young intern, that they would blame him (and the Democrats) more for the year long unpleasantness of an impeachment that was NEVER likely to result in Clinton being thrown out. The House needed just a majority vote - and they got it on a party line vote. The Senate needed 67 votes and - that failed on a party line vote.

For the Republicans, the gamble paid off in 2000. A former mean drunk until he was 40 ran on bringing honor and dignity back to the White House - against a former Eagle Scout, married to his high school sweetheart, with a gorgeous family - and that charge resonated. It also led to Gore picking Lieberman over at least one much better choice. (Kerry would clearly have put some dents into Cheney in the VP debate and been a far better campaigner than Lieberman. )

[DainBramaged]

21. How I wish we could turn back the clock to the day Gore chose Lieberman over Kerry.....

and change his mind.....

[timtom]

22. Does anyone know why Clinton

chose to answer any questions not directly related to WhiteWater?

[Aerows]

24. Cain is a Republican

Didn't you know that "It's okay if you are a Republican"?