Thu May 5, 2016, 11:09 PM
sadoldgirl (3,431 posts)
Simple question for the HRC supporters:
Why do you want a second Clinton impeachment, in case
of her election? You know that the House won't change, you know that they will try to get all the info about her from the FBI investigation, no matter whether they clear her or not. Do you rally look forward to that?
|
59 replies, 3676 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
sadoldgirl | May 2016 | OP |
redstateblues | May 2016 | #1 | |
peace13 | May 2016 | #33 | |
sadoldgirl | May 2016 | #2 | |
BillZBubb | May 2016 | #3 | |
panader0 | May 2016 | #18 | |
Tarc | May 2016 | #4 | |
sadoldgirl | May 2016 | #6 | |
bettyellen | May 2016 | #8 | |
Tarc | May 2016 | #12 | |
redstateblues | May 2016 | #37 | |
AuntPatsy | May 2016 | #5 | |
sadoldgirl | May 2016 | #9 | |
COLGATE4 | May 2016 | #11 | |
AuntPatsy | May 2016 | #17 | |
hrmjustin | May 2016 | #7 | |
sadoldgirl | May 2016 | #14 | |
msongs | May 2016 | #10 | |
sadoldgirl | May 2016 | #16 | |
SFnomad | May 2016 | #23 | |
sadoldgirl | May 2016 | #32 | |
SFnomad | May 2016 | #38 | |
redstateblues | May 2016 | #39 | |
SFnomad | May 2016 | #41 | |
Renew Deal | May 2016 | #46 | |
Rosa Luxemburg | May 2016 | #13 | |
Kalidurga | May 2016 | #26 | |
ChisolmTrailDem | May 2016 | #15 | |
sadoldgirl | May 2016 | #19 | |
Rosa Luxemburg | May 2016 | #29 | |
ChisolmTrailDem | May 2016 | #31 | |
Rosa Luxemburg | May 2016 | #34 | |
ChisolmTrailDem | May 2016 | #35 | |
Rosa Luxemburg | May 2016 | #36 | |
redstateblues | May 2016 | #40 | |
JoePhilly | May 2016 | #56 | |
Dem2 | May 2016 | #20 | |
stevenleser | May 2016 | #21 | |
sadoldgirl | May 2016 | #25 | |
stevenleser | May 2016 | #28 | |
sadoldgirl | May 2016 | #30 | |
nolawarlock | May 2016 | #50 | |
nolawarlock | May 2016 | #48 | |
Sheepshank | May 2016 | #22 | |
sadoldgirl | May 2016 | #27 | |
nolawarlock | May 2016 | #47 | |
Broward | May 2016 | #24 | |
redstateblues | May 2016 | #42 | |
Broward | May 2016 | #49 | |
Renew Deal | May 2016 | #43 | |
BillZBubb | May 2016 | #52 | |
nolawarlock | May 2016 | #44 | |
Trenzalore | May 2016 | #45 | |
paulchouinard | May 2016 | #51 | |
BillZBubb | May 2016 | #54 | |
Orsino | May 2016 | #53 | |
johnp3907 | May 2016 | #55 | |
NCTraveler | May 2016 | #57 | |
Proud Liberal Dem | May 2016 | #58 | |
MSMITH33156 | May 2016 | #59 |
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:13 PM
redstateblues (10,527 posts)
1. It's pathetic that you are thinking of ways to feel better about Bernie losing
You really don't give a shit about anything in your post. Why are you wasting space on DU?
|
Response to redstateblues (Reply #1)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:16 AM
peace13 (11,076 posts)
33. This would not make people feel better.
It was a huge huge distraction and waste of time last go round. 24 hour news will be unbearable.
|
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:15 PM
sadoldgirl (3,431 posts)
2. That does not answer my question at all.
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:15 PM
BillZBubb (10,650 posts)
3. They really don't care. They think they can dismiss it all as a right wing smear.
The Clinton Foundation pay for play is going to be what does her in. That's all going to be available once the FBI has completed its investigation. More than likely she's will get a pass on the mishandling of classified information. The republicans will complain about that, but their real target will be the Clinton Foundation.
|
Response to BillZBubb (Reply #3)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:41 PM
panader0 (24,230 posts)
18. I agree with you about the Clinton Foundation investigation being more serious.
There are numerous "pay for play" deals that went down during HRC's SoS term.
They are documented. To me, and I am a Sanders voter, it seems very plain that there was something going on. The Clinton Foundation is the charity that the Clintons donate to. Just like hundreds of very questionable foreign people. Deals made with HRC as SoS equaled million dollar donations to the Clinton Foundation. They were dropped by Charity Navigator for having an "atypical business model". |
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:18 PM
Tarc (10,212 posts)
4. The Hous ewon't impeach for something that occurred before she even takes office
That would be the height of partisanship, and I have confidence that there's enough Republicans with a shred of integrity that'd prevent such a thing from passing.
There's also the very real possibility that the Dems retake the House this fall, which would render such shenanigans moot. |
Response to Tarc (Reply #4)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:22 PM
sadoldgirl (3,431 posts)
6. Oh yes, they will. They already said so.
Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #6)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:25 PM
bettyellen (47,209 posts)
8. and you are hanging on their every word and trusting it as gospel.
that is adorable.
|
Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #6)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:31 PM
Tarc (10,212 posts)
12. A single Rep, Mo Brooks of Alabama, has floated the idea
Please don't misrepresent a long wingnut's opinion as representative of the whole. There is also past precedent, where the House has explicitly declined to hold impeachment hearings regarding past offenses. Let your little finger do some googling of Schuyler Colfax and Spiro Agnew, you may be enlightened.
|
Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #6)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:21 AM
redstateblues (10,527 posts)
37. it's your fondest wish that they would do that. You are still in the denial stage
Bernie will be endorsing Hillary-start getting used to it
|
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:18 PM
AuntPatsy (9,904 posts)
5. Frankly the whole mail fiasco is a fraudulent undertaking dreamt up by the GOP,
There are other more worthy issues to address, don't repeat thier garbage, it muddies the message needed..
|
Response to AuntPatsy (Reply #5)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:26 PM
sadoldgirl (3,431 posts)
9. It is unimportant how and if they started it.
There are court cases about the FOIA, and an
investigation by the FBI. The question is rather: Do you realize that this will happen, and does it matter to you. |
Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #9)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:30 PM
COLGATE4 (14,732 posts)
11. Court cases about FOIA - Judicial Watch.
![]() |
Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #9)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:40 PM
AuntPatsy (9,904 posts)
17. I assume your a supporter of change AKA Bernie, believe me, you don't need to waste time
there is not a lot of time to waste, Let that fog roll by, don't get lost in it...
|
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:22 PM
hrmjustin (71,265 posts)
7. I am so sick of "Sanders" supporters posting right wing fantasies of Hillary
being indicted or impeached on DU.
You are making DU harder to enjoy! Your guy lost, get over it! |
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #7)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:33 PM
sadoldgirl (3,431 posts)
14. Let me be quite clear about this:
Should HRC win the nomination and it looks that
way obviously, I would rather see Kerry being the one, who gets her delegates than her fighting it out. The attacks on him are now old and not working anymore, but he has shown himself as a great SOS with excellent judgement. |
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:26 PM
msongs (63,868 posts)
10. hate to ruin your fantasy but I suspect can only be impeached for whats done while prez nt
Response to msongs (Reply #10)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:40 PM
sadoldgirl (3,431 posts)
16. Was the Paula Johns affair happening
when he was POTUS?
|
Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #16)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:48 PM
SFnomad (3,473 posts)
23. He wasn't impeached because of the affair ... christ, don't you even know what he was
impeached and acquitted of?
|
Response to SFnomad (Reply #23)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:15 AM
sadoldgirl (3,431 posts)
32. Lying under oath, does that answer your question?!!
Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #32)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:22 AM
SFnomad (3,473 posts)
38. Yes ... and just like msongs said ... WJC was impeached and acquitted for something
that happened while he was in office. Your reply asking about when the Paula Johns [sic] affair happened is immaterial as he wasn't impeached and acquitted for anything that happened back then.
|
Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #32)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:23 AM
redstateblues (10,527 posts)
39. Is that you Sean Hannity?
Response to redstateblues (Reply #39)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:27 AM
SFnomad (3,473 posts)
41. It's hard to tell the right wingnuts and the BS cheerleaders apart at times n/t
Response to SFnomad (Reply #41)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:31 AM
Renew Deal (79,995 posts)
46. There's another possibility
![]() |
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:32 PM
Rosa Luxemburg (28,627 posts)
13. If Hillary is ever president then
the Republicans will not listen to her.
|
Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #13)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:00 AM
Kalidurga (14,177 posts)
26. Neither will former Democrats.
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:35 PM
ChisolmTrailDem (9,463 posts)
15. You should delete your OP. We don't need this. nt
Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #15)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:41 PM
sadoldgirl (3,431 posts)
19. Thank you for your opinion.
Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #15)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:06 AM
Rosa Luxemburg (28,627 posts)
29. It's very disconcerning that a candidate is being investigated.
Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #29)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:14 AM
ChisolmTrailDem (9,463 posts)
31. It is, but we don't need to be talking about impeachment on this particular website. nt
Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #31)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:17 AM
Rosa Luxemburg (28,627 posts)
34. The question wasn't about impeachment
Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #34)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:19 AM
ChisolmTrailDem (9,463 posts)
35. "Why do you want a second Clinton impeachment, in case of her election?" DUers and...
...Bernie supporters should not be posting shit like this.
|
Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #35)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:21 AM
Rosa Luxemburg (28,627 posts)
36. so
where does the op say impeachment?
|
Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #29)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:25 AM
redstateblues (10,527 posts)
40. your concern is duly noted-I know you are praying for Bernie's only path
to the nomination- ain't happening
|
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:43 PM
Dem2 (8,158 posts)
20. It's Democrats fault that Republicans are ass holes
So we ought to cower and not upset our Repuke masters, is that how I should read the O/P?
|
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:44 PM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
21. When did you stop beating your spouse/elderly parent?
I'll bet you don't like answering silly questions like that either.
|
Response to stevenleser (Reply #21)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:54 PM
sadoldgirl (3,431 posts)
25. Are you saying that this will never occur?
I suppose you think that the "New" HRC will
not be attacked by the repugs, after you, of all people condemned her so strongly in 08? Get off your high horse, and look at the facts. I'd rather see Kerry or Biden, both without all that garbage. |
Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #25)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:01 AM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
28. I'm saying your OP poses a complex logical fallacy known as a "Loaded Question"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question ----------------------------------------------------------- All of which is a long way of saying, you presuppose facts which are not only not in evidence they would be over a year in the future if they occur. So you pose a false dilemma to responders in order to serve your agenda. |
Response to stevenleser (Reply #28)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:12 AM
sadoldgirl (3,431 posts)
30. I understand and understood your answers
pretty well. No, at this point I don't have an
agenda, but you as well as everybody on this forum have a pretty good idea what the repugs would or could do. It is unimportant for any of us to assume guilt. If you want to call it a warning of a preemptive war, you would understand me better. |
Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #30)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:42 AM
nolawarlock (1,729 posts)
50. Then why not ask it that way?
Allow me to rephrase the question as if I were a Sanders supporter asking your question:
"Why do you support Hillary if there's even a semi-credible chance that this email controversy could lead to a second Clinton president being impeached by Congress? Are you not concerned that a Republican-controlled House will stop at nothing to continue to exploit this FBI investigation? Don't you think this would stain the very office of the presidency? Do you rally look forward to that?" Ok, I left in your "rally," but that is how I would have worded it. And I would have answered that this email controversy so reeks of agenda and politics on the part of an already Republican Congress and very vocal and powerful Right Wing that has hated her for years, that I do believe they will stop at nothing. However, I also believe that Hillary, like Bill before her who refused to resign and retained his popularity, should stand up for her policies, her message, and what she can do for America in the face of that kind of bullying. If this were any other candidate, I might actually be able to relate to the strength of the question, had you asked it in the way that I rephrased it for you, but then I would come to my senses and realize that this is a candidate who has weathered so many false narratives written about her over the years that she's as tough a candidate as anyone who could ever face Trump and she's clearly not one to be shaken by controversy. If it turns out that she committed wrong-doing, then let her pay the price, but so many boys and girls have cried wolf about Hillary all these years with insane falsehoods ranging from Ron Brown's plane (can you hear it overhead GDP now?) to the most recent Illumaniti Guccifer, that it's hard to believe anything bad that's said about her. This is one candidate I'm the most willing to apply "innocent until proven guilty" to, because pretty much everything ever thrown at her hasn't stuck. |
Response to stevenleser (Reply #28)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:33 AM
nolawarlock (1,729 posts)
48. Thank you...
... for providing the long form of this. It's plain as day what the OP is doing.
|
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:45 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
22. There's a good reason your inane op garners no recs
Not sure what you were trying to achieve, but I'm pretty sure it fell flat on its face.
I felt compelled to just get that out in the open. |
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #22)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:01 AM
sadoldgirl (3,431 posts)
27. a) I don't ask those questions to get recs,
and b) I would like to hear answers, which
are not there. And c) I would like people to think about that very probably scenario. |
Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #27)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:32 AM
nolawarlock (1,729 posts)
47. No, this question was flame-bait, plain and simple.
You're asking why we want Hillary impeached. Clearly we do not and clearly we also don't think she's going to be.
|
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:49 PM
Broward (1,976 posts)
24. They're all in on oligarchy. Nothing else seems to matter.
Response to Broward (Reply #24)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:29 AM
redstateblues (10,527 posts)
42. straw men everywhere-third wayers, neo liberals, moderate Democrats
faux progressives, oligarchs- Cue the X Files theme
|
Response to redstateblues (Reply #42)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:33 AM
Broward (1,976 posts)
49. Be honest with who you are.
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:30 AM
Renew Deal (79,995 posts)
43. Better than Sanders losing the general election
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #43)
Fri May 6, 2016, 02:28 PM
BillZBubb (10,650 posts)
52. Sanders would blow away trump. Hillary, not so much.
More people, according to recent polls, would now vote for Hillary in order to stop trump than would vote for her because they like her or her policies. The same is true on the other side for trump voters.
Both Hillary and Trump are viewed very negatively by independent voters. The Hillary dislike has been high for decades. The trump negatives are fairly recent and can be lessened by a smart campaign. Hillary is stuck, she just can't overcome that long standing negative situation. She's also the establishment, status quo candidate in a time when the establishments and status quo aren't popular. Hillary's only hope is to successfully paint trump as so insane or unstable that he cannot ever be in a situation of power. That's going to be a hard sell. Sanders, on the other hand, is viewed favorably by independents. He'd take some hits in the GE campaign but would be positioned infinitely better than trump or Hillary. |
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:30 AM
nolawarlock (1,729 posts)
44. What kind of leading question is that?
That's like asking us how long we've been beating our wives.
Who among Clinton's supporters have actually said they want an impeachment? |
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:31 AM
Trenzalore (1,654 posts)
45. I am sure a professed socialist will fair better with the GOP....sarcasm should be noted nt.
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 01:58 AM
paulchouinard (1 post)
51. 2nd Clinton impeachment
The impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton was a sick GOP joke, as would be an impeachment of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Any Democratic President with a Republican House will be a target for impeachment; Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders included. For a Democratic President, impeachment is simply part of the job description.
|
Response to paulchouinard (Reply #51)
Fri May 6, 2016, 02:33 PM
BillZBubb (10,650 posts)
54. Strange, I don't recall any hearings to impeach Obama. I must have missed that.
The Clintons, because of their secrecy and casual interpretation of the law open themselves up to investigations time and again. Obama isn't anything like them. He never gave the republicans one plausible excuse for impeachment. Hillary, on the other hand, comes ready made with numerous areas for republican attack.
|
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 02:31 PM
Orsino (37,428 posts)
53. Another goddamned "supporters" thread. n/t
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 03:59 PM
johnp3907 (3,405 posts)
55. Simple question for you:
Why don't you get a life?
|
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 04:06 PM
NCTraveler (30,481 posts)
57. Yes, I'm fine with it.
Doing that early on in Clintons Presidency would be a distraction to start and would end like the Gowdy Commission. We would gain political clout.
|
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 04:08 PM
Proud Liberal Dem (22,662 posts)
58. So
We should just let the Republicans choose or nominees based on how much we think they plan to attack/drag down our candidate & potential POTUS?
![]() |
Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 04:18 PM
MSMITH33156 (879 posts)
59. If I let Republicans
being loony impact my vote, I never would have voted for Obama.
I support HRC because I think she is the best candidate running. I voted for her in the primary and will do so again in the general election. If the Republicans choose to go on a witch hunt, then they do that. I can't control RW crazies and will never try to. What I certainly won't do is vote a certain way to kowtow to them under the assumption that they're nuts. |