6 ms·

Why limit it to outside their term of office? Bill Clinton undeniably committed perjury. That was during his term, but not related to his duties as President.

Why limit it to outside their term of office? Bill Clinton undeniably committed perjury. That was during his term, but not related to his duties as President. Despite his clear guilt, every Democrat in the Senate voted not remove him from office, and he was never charged by a criminal court. He was also accused of rape and sexual assault by numerous women, and never charged in any of those cases. The Democrat voters I knew at the time (including myself) knew quite well that he was guilty of perjury and sexual harassment, and probably sexual assault as well, but didn't care. We felt that the investigation was politically motivated, and that having him in office was more important than enforcing the law.

mandeepj 2y ago
> Despite his clear guilt, every Democrat in the Senate voted not remove him from office, and he was never charged by a criminal court. Didn't every Republican senator do the same to save Trump from Impeachment despite clearly calling insurrection?
- leereeves 2y ago
  No, that's incorrect. But I'm tired of looking up sources for facts that clearly aren't appreciated here, so I'll let you look it up.
defrost 2y ago
Because US Presidents have immunity (limited) for official acts commited while in office. Donald Trump was convicted for acts outside of term in office as POTUS, the question of whether this was fair or unfair rests on whether other POTUS's have skated on criminal acts outside of their term in office.
- leereeves 2y ago
  The key there is official acts. Falsely testifying about Clinton's relations with a subordinate (Monica Lewinsky) was not an official act, and he didn't have immunity. He was granted immunity by the Republican investigating him, Robert Ray, for reasons that AFAIK were never made clear. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/white_house-jan-june01-clinton_01-19 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/white_house-jan-june01... https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clinton-accepts-immunity-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clin...
  - frumper 2y ago
    He gave the reasons. He took a deal for a fine, loss of his law license for 5 years, and not pursuing lawyer fees as his punishment for what he did. In exchange for that, he would be immune from being prosecuted any further on that matter. It's quite plain in the article you linked.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      Far less than the penalties he would have suffered had he been charged and (inevitably) convicted. The question wasn't what the deal was, but why the prosecutor would offer such a sweet deal.
      - frumper 2y ago
        Every deal is more lenient than maximum or even typical penalties. Why else would people take them if not?
        leereeves 2y ago
        Why offer a deal at all? The usual reason is to save money, but that wasn't a concern in that huge everlasting investigation of Clinton.
        ModernMech 2y ago
        It was 2001, Clinton was leaving office, Bush was entering. They didn't need a prosecution of a former president on their hands. They had just assumed the White House after losing the popular vote, people were bitter about the whole 2000 election to begin with. There was no political will to prosecute the Clintons, because the entire point of White Water and the subsequent Lewinsky investigations was to damage the Clintons politically. Mission accomplished. I mean, it took years to badger the DOJ into prosecuting Trump for waging an insurrection when he was on his way out. Honestly Trump would have gotten the same treatment as Clinton if he hadn't gone apeshit at the end. He wouldn't have a Federal indictment or a Georgia indictment. The other Florida indictment wouldn't have happened if he would have just returned everything he had taken instead of lying about it for a year and trying to hide it. The two NY cases would have resulted in a fine and community service if he had just kept his mouth shut and shown a little contrition.
mcphage 2y ago
Look, if you want to toss Bill Clinton in jail for any or all of those offenses—go right ahead. I don’t think many Democrats would complain or shed a tear. If that’s the price for holding criminals responsible, then it’s one I’ll gladly pay.
- leereeves 2y ago
  Easy to say now, when you know it won't (can't) happen, and even if it did, it would have no effect on governing the nation. As defrost said well: "the question of whether this was fair or unfair rests on whether other POTUS's have skated on criminal acts [for which they didn't have immunity as President]". Other POTUS's have, so, it was unfair. Changing that may be a good idea, or it may simply lead to more abuse of power as the party in office investigates its enemies. I guess we'll find out.
  - mcphage 2y ago
    It's pretty easy to say, full stop.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      Yet no Democrats said it when it was a real possibility, and would have mattered. Despite your erroneous thoughts, many Democrats complained.
      - whoknowsidont 2y ago
        You are literally holding the judicial process hostage and throwing proportionality out the window to make some contrived, disingenuous point. People are not willing to entertain this non-sense. He means it when any reasonable person would burn Bill Clinton just to avoid the catastrophe conservatives would bring upon this country by making the law useless. Trust it. And fix your perspectives. They're dangerous.
        leereeves 2y ago

mandeepj 2y ago

> Despite his clear guilt, every Democrat in the Senate voted not remove him from office, and he was never charged by a criminal court. Didn't every Republican senator do the same to save Trump from Impeachment despite clearly calling insurrection?

leereeves 2y ago
No, that's incorrect. But I'm tired of looking up sources for facts that clearly aren't appreciated here, so I'll let you look it up.

defrost 2y ago

Because US Presidents have immunity (limited) for official acts commited while in office. Donald Trump was convicted for acts outside of term in office as POTUS, the question of whether this was fair or unfair rests on whether other POTUS's have skated on criminal acts outside of their term in office.

leereeves 2y ago
The key there is official acts. Falsely testifying about Clinton's relations with a subordinate (Monica Lewinsky) was not an official act, and he didn't have immunity. He was granted immunity by the Republican investigating him, Robert Ray, for reasons that AFAIK were never made clear. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/white_house-jan-june01-clinton_01-19 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/white_house-jan-june01... https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clinton-accepts-immunity-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clin...
- frumper 2y ago
  He gave the reasons. He took a deal for a fine, loss of his law license for 5 years, and not pursuing lawyer fees as his punishment for what he did. In exchange for that, he would be immune from being prosecuted any further on that matter. It's quite plain in the article you linked.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    Far less than the penalties he would have suffered had he been charged and (inevitably) convicted. The question wasn't what the deal was, but why the prosecutor would offer such a sweet deal.
    - frumper 2y ago
      Every deal is more lenient than maximum or even typical penalties. Why else would people take them if not?
      - leereeves 2y ago
        Why offer a deal at all? The usual reason is to save money, but that wasn't a concern in that huge everlasting investigation of Clinton.
        ModernMech 2y ago
        It was 2001, Clinton was leaving office, Bush was entering. They didn't need a prosecution of a former president on their hands. They had just assumed the White House after losing the popular vote, people were bitter about the whole 2000 election to begin with. There was no political will to prosecute the Clintons, because the entire point of White Water and the subsequent Lewinsky investigations was to damage the Clintons politically. Mission accomplished. I mean, it took years to badger the DOJ into prosecuting Trump for waging an insurrection when he was on his way out. Honestly Trump would have gotten the same treatment as Clinton if he hadn't gone apeshit at the end. He wouldn't have a Federal indictment or a Georgia indictment. The other Florida indictment wouldn't have happened if he would have just returned everything he had taken instead of lying about it for a year and trying to hide it. The two NY cases would have resulted in a fine and community service if he had just kept his mouth shut and shown a little contrition.

mcphage 2y ago

Look, if you want to toss Bill Clinton in jail for any or all of those offenses—go right ahead. I don’t think many Democrats would complain or shed a tear. If that’s the price for holding criminals responsible, then it’s one I’ll gladly pay.

leereeves 2y ago
Easy to say now, when you know it won't (can't) happen, and even if it did, it would have no effect on governing the nation. As defrost said well: "the question of whether this was fair or unfair rests on whether other POTUS's have skated on criminal acts [for which they didn't have immunity as President]". Other POTUS's have, so, it was unfair. Changing that may be a good idea, or it may simply lead to more abuse of power as the party in office investigates its enemies. I guess we'll find out.
- mcphage 2y ago
  It's pretty easy to say, full stop.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    Yet no Democrats said it when it was a real possibility, and would have mattered. Despite your erroneous thoughts, many Democrats complained.
    - whoknowsidont 2y ago
      You are literally holding the judicial process hostage and throwing proportionality out the window to make some contrived, disingenuous point. People are not willing to entertain this non-sense. He means it when any reasonable person would burn Bill Clinton just to avoid the catastrophe conservatives would bring upon this country by making the law useless. Trust it. And fix your perspectives. They're dangerous.
      - leereeves 2y ago