Cain on Foreign Policy

[Plane]

Sexual harassment did not form part of any charges against Clinton in the impeachment proceedings. 

    And yet were indeed the charges against him in his civil trial where his aquittal is spoiled by his purjury.

    This purjury that he is unarguably guilty of was an important factor in his impeachment which but by a single vote finally did go is way.

    Thus we have a standard set "high crimes and misdemors" suitable for impeachment do not include purjury nor sexual harrassment.

      There is no question at all about "never happened", proof abounded by that time, NBD is the remainder.

[Plane]

On the balance, Clinton was very close to being a truly great president.

Clinton will be remembered for winning two wars with record low casualtys on the American side. Whoops...    no, I guess not you forgot that one yourself today.

The Monica affair was a defect in his character, I suppose, but a defect that was not uncommon to other presidents, like Cleveland, Harding, FDR, and JFK and I am sure LBJ as well.

I think you should leave Cleavland out of this list , but you are substantially correct , feet of clay do run in the presidency.

Cain does not have a lot of beneficial public service on his plus side. I can't say that Cain is better than Clinton, though.

I hope Cain will ,as a mathmatician, understand what he is doing to the economy.

As I said, I am all for him staying in the race. Perhaps it will be good for the country to have the voters, rather than the press, decide what the penalty for this sort of thing should be.

I like that.

But as a candidate, I think that is is toast.

I think perhaps.

But Gary Hart was not tosted untill he was caught red handed , and Clinton rode reasonable doubt right into the Whitehouse.

As a Republican Herman Cain will have to pass a higher bar most of the time , but if his momentum really gets up we can reinvoke the Reagan teflon.

If proof piles up and becomes persuasive you will be right, but having a woman or ten make an allegation isn't gonna be enough.

[Michael Tee]

<<Thus we have a standard set "high crimes and misdemors" suitable for impeachment do not include purjury nor sexual harrassment.>>

Sexual harassment was never before the House or the Senate.  So it was absolutely impossible for any standard to be set on that charge.

Perjury, on the evidence before the Senate and the House, was never found to have occurred.  Hence the dismissal of the bill of impeachment in the Senate and the House's refusal to pass along the second perjury charge to the Senate.  Since there was no finding of perjury by the Senate in either of the two charges, perjury was never established in the impeachment proceedings and no standard was set for perjury.

      <<There is no question at all about "never happened", proof abounded by that time, NBD is the remainder.>>

Well, wherever "proof abounded," it sure as hell didn't "abound" in the Senate of the United States Congress during Bill's impeachment and so the Senate never found in its impeachment proceedings that Bill C. had committed perjury.  So no standard was set there for perjury, either for or against.

[Plane]

   Even so, he was guilty of sexual harasment . He was guilty of purjury.

    If these cannot even be made into charges during an ongoing purjury proceding then they are NBD and within the standards, sic stare decisis.









Semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat.
This could be on my headstone.

Man,... some of these are funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)#S

[Plane]

<<Standards !   

  <<By one vote in the Senate Clinton avoided being tossed out .

    <<And so a standard is set.>>

 ROTFLMFAO!  That is the most complete and utter bullshit I have seen to date on this subject.  It's pure nonsense.  How can anyone set a standard by non-conviction, whether by one vote or twenty?

From Wikipedia on the impeachment of Bill Clinton:

<<[Clinton] was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice on December 19, 1998, but acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. Two other impeachment articles, a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power, failed in the House. >>

So on four charges totally unrelated to sexual harassment and sexual assault (which is what Herm the Perv is now said to have committed) Congress found that no impeachable offences had been committed.  You don't set standards by what the guy was acquitted of, because the acquittal means he didn't do anything.  Or at least, he didn't do anything that the Congress of the United States should penalize him for.  The margin of acquittal is meaningless - - a differently constituted Congress might have acquitted by a wider margin, or might even have kicked him out of office.  It's all pure speculation.  The Congress, as duly constituted at the time, DID NOT FIND that any impeachable offence had been committed.

I think your real argument is non-existent.   This whole non-stop attempt to drag Clinton into a case which has absolutely nothing to do with him - - the American people will set their own "standards" for who they want as President and the party sets its own standard for who it wants as its candidate - - is pure distraction.  Clinton's case is clearly a red herring and as such should be ignored in the context of this discussion.


Clinton was NOT tossed out, so nothing that he allegedly did sets any standard, because none of it was admitted in the impeachment proceedings.  The offences for which impeachment was instituted, BTW, were obstruct justice and

   Clinton was NoT tossed out , so everything Clinton did is within the standards of  qualifying for the presidency. Especially since impeachment proceedings were performed and everything he did that didn't even make it into the proceedings must meet the new minimum standard.

      What Clinton will be remembered for most In my opinion is new minimum standards.