Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I have been against impeachment due to the Senate, I no longer am [View all]Mr.Bill
(24,282 posts)176. If Hillary Clinton had been sworn in as President
and the republicans still controlled the House, they would have impeached her in a matter of days.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
188 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
And if we don't, it suggests that Trump's transgressions are less important than Bill Clinton's.
flor-de-jasmim
Apr 2019
#2
The impeachment was two years after Clinton's re-election, beginning in December of 1968.
hedda_foil
Apr 2019
#146
Respectfully, I think this analysis suffers from a few omissions and logical fallacies.
better
Apr 2019
#153
same here..ive been holding off on sending Tom Steyers 'Need To Impeach' postcards...
samnsara
Apr 2019
#4
I mean king (or Queen) in the political power sense, a monarch not bound by law or custom.
Celerity
Apr 2019
#10
There is no reason at all that they can't. That's what I think they should be doing now.
ehrnst
Apr 2019
#8
They need all the underlying evidence including grand jury testimony in order
boston bean
Apr 2019
#66
It's not a binary choice (Impeach/Don't Impeach) Either way, FIRST INVESTIGATE.
lagomorph777
Apr 2019
#122
Research isn't part of the impeachment reasoning process, which appears to be straightforward:
Pope George Ringo II
Apr 2019
#131
Yes, that's pretty much the problem with impeachment in a nutshell.
Pope George Ringo II
Apr 2019
#141
+1, Some posters are making it their duty to be concerned with as much condescension as possible
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#14
THIS !!! I've already thrown a red flag about the amount of FUD pettifogging impeachment.
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#67
I am 100% with you !!! It would NOT take long at all if you went the simple seemingly slam dunk
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#79
Cummings said on MJ we can look at impeachment. I know he's not the leader but there's
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#151
Yep, drop the whole damn thing if it's going nowhere. I think Pelosi is going to look at the polls
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#158
there is nothing subtle about the menace we face, in both the short and long term event horizons
Celerity
Apr 2019
#24
I profoundly disagree with your stance and your mischaracterisation of both my intent
Celerity
Apr 2019
#36
Nah, you sly one you ... no you don't. The sophistry on this issue is oozing those are ...
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#80
No it's not a rhetorical question, you can't guarantee Red Don wont win so it's irresponsible ...
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#77
That's the definition of 'rhetorical question,' - one that you already have your answer for...
ehrnst
Apr 2019
#83
You claimed Red Don can be impeached in a second term. Keep up with your own words
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#100
This is false and you know it, stop with the FUD ehrnst others have already noticed your pettifoggin
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#69
+1, its hard for the cops to say "they got away with it" when they did nothing to stop them
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#15
You are pettifogging a foundational moral, legal holding to account and erecting an
Celerity
Apr 2019
#26
I am NOT a sir, and I do NOT need a thesaurus to express myself in a varied, substantial way
Celerity
Apr 2019
#42
When you know the "nothing" is relative. I already expect sophistry from some :rolleyes:
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#27
At least one has been an accomplice to this very same thing with another criminal president
FiveGoodMen
Apr 2019
#167
+1, we don't have to move for conviction or even removal just get the information out there to
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#35
So by "they" you mean "a few fans that you know," not "they" as in any more than that.
ehrnst
Apr 2019
#115
Sure, as long as it's THEIR dictator. They all seem to think this will last forever.
catbyte
Apr 2019
#102
impeachment only takes a simple House majority, conviction and removal is where the 67 vote Senate
Celerity
Apr 2019
#50
Because Clinton was relatively popular with republicans. It was republicans who didn't
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#114
Tom Cotton perhaps, he is one smart and evil fuck, plus a vet and a fundie radical
Celerity
Apr 2019
#117
I'm on the fence but from a pragmatic standpoint look at this excerpt from nate silver's 538 chat
jcgoldie
Apr 2019
#93
This is a HARD PASS from me. For those of us who lived through Clinton's acquittal
Baltimike
Apr 2019
#99
Its false equivalency to compare Red Don to Clinton on POLLING alone. Clinton was relatively
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#103
It's false equivalency to compare impeachment w popularity on the other side
Baltimike
Apr 2019
#105
The Republicans are blowing up their own party. Trump, via Mitch, is packing the court with ultra
in2herbs
Apr 2019
#104
Illiberal democracy (Orban, Trump,Matteo Salvini, etc. and their ilk/minions are the new template)
Celerity
Apr 2019
#109
Congressional Democrats have several jobs to do...one of those jobs is. Checks and balances.
world wide wally
Apr 2019
#116
Yes, we should. But so tired of dems having to be the adults in the room and battle for
wiggs
Apr 2019
#164
The House has a duty to impeach; if it doesn't, it will suppress the Dem vote in 2020.
SunSeeker
Apr 2019
#166
same here..i was always wanting to wait til we got all the facts but hell we have them NOW
samnsara
Apr 2019
#185