4 ms·

This is empirically untrue. Bill Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice — both limitations on freedom of speech — during his time as Presi

This is empirically untrue. Bill Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice — both limitations on freedom of speech — during his time as President [1], although he was eventually acquitted. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Natsu 9y ago
Just to clarify what 'acquitted' applies to, I would note that President Bill Clinton was acquitted of the articles of impeachment by the US Senate. He settled the sexual harassment lawsuit with Paula Jones during appeal and agreed to a suspension of his license to practice law after being held in civil contempt of court by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright in separate proceedings.
marcoperaza 9y ago
There is clearly a difference between lying under oath and having opinions. Further, impeachment proceedings are 100% political, not legal. Grounds for impeachment are whatever half of the House of Representatives, and 2/3rds of the Senate, say they are.
- ShabbosGoy 9y ago
  > Further, impeachment proceedings are 100% political, not legal. This is just straight up incorrect. If you read the Constitution, it states in Article I Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." [1] Then in Section 3: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...and No Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." [2] Checks and balances are political now? Hoooo boy. [1] https://genius.com/1290855 https://genius.com/1290855 [2] https://genius.com/4027445 https://genius.com/4027445
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    You misunderstand me. What I’m saying is that the House and Senate could impeach a President for smiling too much if they wanted to. The requirement that it be for “crimes” is meaningless except politically.
- jakelazaroff 9y ago
  > There is clearly a difference between lying under oath and having opinions. You're shifting the goalposts here. We're discussing a hypothetical situation in which the President tweets something literally illegal. > Further, impeachment proceedings are 100% political, not legal. The aforelinked article about Bill Clinton's impeachment also mentions that while in office, he was cited for contempt of court — another limitation on freedom of speech — by a federal judge.

Natsu 9y ago

Just to clarify what 'acquitted' applies to, I would note that President Bill Clinton was acquitted of the articles of impeachment by the US Senate. He settled the sexual harassment lawsuit with Paula Jones during appeal and agreed to a suspension of his license to practice law after being held in civil contempt of court by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright in separate proceedings.

marcoperaza 9y ago

There is clearly a difference between lying under oath and having opinions. Further, impeachment proceedings are 100% political, not legal. Grounds for impeachment are whatever half of the House of Representatives, and 2/3rds of the Senate, say they are.

ShabbosGoy 9y ago
> Further, impeachment proceedings are 100% political, not legal. This is just straight up incorrect. If you read the Constitution, it states in Article I Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." [1] Then in Section 3: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...and No Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." [2] Checks and balances are political now? Hoooo boy. [1] https://genius.com/1290855 https://genius.com/1290855 [2] https://genius.com/4027445 https://genius.com/4027445
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  You misunderstand me. What I’m saying is that the House and Senate could impeach a President for smiling too much if they wanted to. The requirement that it be for “crimes” is meaningless except politically.
jakelazaroff 9y ago
> There is clearly a difference between lying under oath and having opinions. You're shifting the goalposts here. We're discussing a hypothetical situation in which the President tweets something literally illegal. > Further, impeachment proceedings are 100% political, not legal. The aforelinked article about Bill Clinton's impeachment also mentions that while in office, he was cited for contempt of court — another limitation on freedom of speech — by a federal judge.