Clinton impeachment

[Guest]

There has been talk that if Hillary was to get in office that the GOP would start impeachment proceedings on her first day in office because of the laws that she broke with the email usage. OK all well and good, but if that would be reason enough, and it may be then why cant that disqualify now to keep her from running and save the country millions of dollars.

[Guest]

If in fact there is any such thought I would like to hear the logic that results in waiting until after elected VS taking appropriate action NOW!

[Guest]

I think it was a congress man from Alabama

[Guest]

Are you sure it wasn't a former president from Arkansas?...:1rotfl:

[Guest]

If in fact there is any such thought I would like to hear the logic that results in waiting until after elected VS taking appropriate action NOW!

Logic? We are Tea Bag members and we don't need no stinkin' logic!

[Guest]

There has been talk that if Hillary was to get in office that the GOP would start impeachment proceedings on her first day in office because of the laws that she broke with the email usage. OK all well and good, but if that would be reason enough, and it may be then why cant that disqualify now to keep her from running and save the country millions of dollars.








As if Mrs Clinton hasn't already made the Cons look like the incompetent fools they are.

They sure are glutons for punishment.

[Guest]

That would take the prize for stupidity. What they would be saying is they don't trust the FBI. Everyone that doesn't agree with them is in the bag for the Democratic party. Ryan, when he becomes speaker, is going to have to deal with these people. Good luck.

[Guest]

As if Mrs Clinton hasn't already made the Cons look like the incompetent fools they are.

They sure are glutons for punishment.

That's a stupid remark. It's HER "incompetence" that is being investigated. Talk about incompetence, how about those Dems sitting on the committee that did nothing but kiss her as...? They asked no question related to the investigation.

And the spelling is "gluttons." Automatic spell check is a wonderful thing. It's too bad that it doesn't correct my grammar.

[Guest]

Logic? We are Tea Bag members and we don't need no stinkin' logic!

If anyone would know anything about Tea Ba...ing, it would be you. That's a liberal thing, not a conservative thing.

[Guest]

If she is elected, then YES she should be impeached. Of course, it will mean that Obama's FBI is corrupt, which shouldn't be any surprise, if you consider that the Attorney General is corrupt, the Director of the IRS is/was corrupt, etc. It is obvious that Hillary did in fact violate Federal Law as revealed by her emails and the SF312 that she was required to sign. Any first year law student would be able to get a conviction.

[Guest]

It would 2/3 vote of the House to impeach her. Do you think that about 60 Democrats would vote to impeach her?

[Guest]

This is a sorry conversation for all. The only things that both parties ever agreed upon and came together was going to war 9-11. This is the only event in our history that both parties were UNITED....going to war....

[Guest]

It would 2/3 vote of the House to impeach her. Do you think that about 60 Democrats would vote to impeach her?

All it takes for 60 Dems to vote for it, is enough money. Everyone knows that the corrupt Dems can be bought.

[Guest]

That's a stupid remark. It's HER "incompetence" that is being investigated. Talk about incompetence, how about those Dems sitting on the committee that did nothing but kiss her as...? They asked no question related to the investigation.

And the spelling is "gluttons." Automatic spell check is a wonderful thing. It's too bad that it doesn't correct my grammar.







You really have to be stupid to think there even is an investigation going on. So far, three Cons have admitted this is all about bringing down Clinton's poll numbers and nothing else.

[Guest]

You really have to be stupid to think there even is an investigation going on. So far, three Cons have admitted this is all about bringing down Clinton's poll numbers and nothing else.

Talk about stupid. The FBI doesn't work for the GOP. If anything, they would be controlled by Obama. So, you really should think before you insert foot in your mouth, figuratively speaking. Got any other points of wisdom you wish to make? :1rotfl:

[Guest]

You really have to be stupid to think there even is an investigation going on. So far, three Cons have admitted this is all about bringing down Clinton's poll numbers and nothing else.


Wow..you have to get out more.

First of all, NO "cons" have "admitted" anything. A number of opinions were given, construed by the media as an opinion not shared by the committee on Benghazi.

It was the committee on Benghazi that had the comments, and NOT the FBI investigation. You have your spin all mixed up and confused.

FBI is not controlled by any party, that I know of.

Lastly, please explain WHY anyone would ever in a million years have a conspiracy of ANY KIND to affect POLLS.

POLLS ? A group of about 1000 people are asked questions.

Please get up to speed and know what you are speaking of before you post.

[Guest]

Wow..you have to get out more.

First of all, NO "cons" have "admitted" anything. A number of opinions were given, construed by the media as an opinion not shared by the committee on Benghazi.

It was the committee on Benghazi that had the comments, and NOT the FBI investigation. You have your spin all mixed up and confused.

FBI is not controlled by any party, that I know of.

Lastly, please explain WHY anyone would ever in a million years have a conspiracy of ANY KIND to affect POLLS.

POLLS ? A group of about 1000 people are asked questions.

Please get up to speed and know what you are speaking of before you post.

:clap2:....:thumbup:

[Guest]

This thread is like listening to 50 different people telling the same joke they all heard last night!!
:1rotfl:
:clap2:

[Guest]

Perhaps a history lesson is in order at this point....

How many US Presidents have been impeached?

Answer: None The House voted impeachment for Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton but the Senate acquitted them.

Why wasn't Nixon impeached for Watergate? The Democrats could have done that but allowed the Republican's to go to Nixon and talk him into leaving...for the good of the country.

Bill Clinton and Hillary were the subjects of a long investigation which cost mllions of dollars only to find out what the American public already knew...Bill Clinton couldn't keep it, like most men, in his pants.

The Democrats could and really thought about bring articles of impeachment against Bush for war crimes and lying in the run up to the war but they had learned a lesson during the Clinton impeachment. Clinton got more popular, with the public, after his impeachment and won re-election.

For a number of years we have been hearing about impeaching Obama and now there are calls to impeach Hillary on the first day she take office.

Oh please keep it up... You all boosted her up in the polls when a bunch of mostly white guys hammered on her for 11 hours.

Keep of the impeachment talk she will win.

That is the main difference between Democrat's and Republican's we learn our lessons and you are just out to get anyone who disagrees with you. Point in fact when have to ever seen or heard a protestor dragged out of a Democratic prep rally? The only thing close to that in the past was GW Bush's campaign who would have protestors arrested.

Release the hounds!!!!

[Guest]

Perhaps a history lesson is in order at this point....

How many US Presidents have been impeached?

Answer: None The House voted impeachment for Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton but the Senate acquitted them.

Why wasn't Nixon impeached for Watergate? The Democrats could have done that but allowed the Republican's to go to Nixon and talk him into leaving...for the good of the country.

Bill Clinton and Hillary were the subjects of a long investigation which cost mllions of dollars only to find out what the American public already knew...Bill Clinton couldn't keep it, like most men, in his pants.

The Democrats could and really thought about bring articles of impeachment against Bush for war crimes and lying in the run up to the war but they had learned a lesson during the Clinton impeachment. Clinton got more popular, with the public, after his impeachment and won re-election.

For a number of years we have been hearing about impeaching Obama and now there are calls to impeach Hillary on the first day she take office.

Oh please keep it up... You all boosted her up in the polls when a bunch of mostly white guys hammered on her for 11 hours.

Keep of the impeachment talk she will win.

That is the main difference between Democrat's and Republican's we learn our lessons and you are just out to get anyone who disagrees with you. Point in fact when have to ever seen or heard a protestor dragged out of a Democratic prep rally? The only thing close to that in the past was GW Bush's campaign who would have protestors arrested.

Release the hounds!!!!

Did those past presidents jeopardize national security by mishandling classified material? It's quite obvious that Hillary is guilty of blatantly mishandling high level classified information. I have the statutes she violated if you need them.

[Guest]

Did those past presidents jeopardize national security by mishandling classified material? It's quite obvious that Hillary is guilty of blatantly mishandling high level classified information. I have the statutes she violated if you need them.

Did Bush torture?

[Guest]

Perhaps a history lesson is in order at this point....

How many US Presidents have been impeached?

Answer: None The House voted impeachment for Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton but the Senate acquitted them.

Why wasn't Nixon impeached for Watergate? The Democrats could have done that but allowed the Republican's to go to Nixon and talk him into leaving...for the good of the country.

Bill Clinton and Hillary were the subjects of a long investigation which cost mllions of dollars only to find out what the American public already knew...Bill Clinton couldn't keep it, like most men, in his pants.

The Democrats could and really thought about bring articles of impeachment against Bush for war crimes and lying in the run up to the war but they had learned a lesson during the Clinton impeachment. Clinton got more popular, with the public, after his impeachment and won re-election.

For a number of years we have been hearing about impeaching Obama and now there are calls to impeach Hillary on the first day she take office.

Oh please keep it up... You all boosted her up in the polls when a bunch of mostly white guys hammered on her for 11 hours.

Keep of the impeachment talk she will win.

That is the main difference between Democrat's and Republican's we learn our lessons and you are just out to get anyone who disagrees with you. Point in fact when have to ever seen or heard a protestor dragged out of a Democratic prep rally? The only thing close to that in the past was GW Bush's campaign who would have protestors arrested.

Release the hounds!!!!


Revisionist history, once again sans any facts

1. The impeachment proceedings against Clinton were based on perjury and bstruction of Justice, not his "cigaring" in the Oval Office.

Also to remind you, he and Hillary also lied to the entire nation right before his first election. He and Hillary both looked into those 60 Minute cameras and denied the entire Genifer Flowers item.

Good thing about his impeachment proceedings he finally admitted under oath that he lied, but that lie on 60 minutes is what got him elected.

If you think the Clintons first run at lying was in Washinton, you are very naive. Volumes on the Arkansas time, all proven and not denied.

They are accomplished liars.

2. You make the Democrats out like nice guys with Nixon and have no idea where you came up with that fantasy. Nixon, cheat and stupid bum he was, would have stayed as long as possible. He resigned because one single tape, a smoking gun, lost all his Republican support and he knew it was over.

3. The Bush talk is like the Obama talk and the new Clinton talk. Political rhetoric and that's it.

While you assessment of Democrats and Republicans is also an exercise in fantasy, it exposes nativity.

To answer your question about protestors, I refer you to the 1968 RIOTS IN THE STREETS of Chicago during the Democratic convention.

I would hope that some posters stop revising history to fit their narrative. There are enough real things to discuss without making things up or leaving things out.
.

[Guest]

You poor thing....go lay down.It's time for your nap.When you wake up
we will find your coloring book.

[Guest]

Did those past presidents jeopardize national security by mishandling classified material? It's quite obvious that Hillary is guilty of blatantly mishandling high level classified information. I have the statutes she violated if you need them.


I'm sure you are MORE (or less) knowledgeable than the committee that hammered Hilary for 11 hours to NO avail!....Give it up.. and get ready for the First Female President:BigApplause:

[Guest]

I'm sure you are MORE (or less) knowledgeable than the committee that hammered Hilary for 11 hours to NO avail!....Give it up.. and get ready for the First Female President:BigApplause:

Just a reminder, if I may.

NOBODY knew about the Clinton and her, at that time, hidden emails and hidden servers. They were hidden until the committee found out.

While she might win, I cannot believe the mileage that she and her minnions like you are getting out of this. A victory lap because she did not blow her top. A few more inconsistencies came out and much more to come.

But, you have your parties, enjoy yourself. She testified without losing her temper. Practice makes perfect and she surely has had a ton of that practice.

[Guest]

Revisionist history, once again sans any facts

1. The impeachment proceedings against Clinton were based on perjury and bstruction of Justice, not his "cigaring" in the Oval Office.

Also to remind you, he and Hillary also lied to the entire nation right before his first election. He and Hillary both looked into those 60 Minute cameras and denied the entire Genifer Flowers item.

Good thing about his impeachment proceedings he finally admitted under oath that he lied, but that lie on 60 minutes is what got him elected.

If you think the Clintons first run at lying was in Washinton, you are very naive. Volumes on the Arkansas time, all proven and not denied.

They are accomplished liars.

2. You make the Democrats out like nice guys with Nixon and have no idea where you came up with that fantasy. Nixon, cheat and stupid bum he was, would have stayed as long as possible. He resigned because one single tape, a smoking gun, lost all his Republican support and he knew it was over.

3. The Bush talk is like the Obama talk and the new Clinton talk. Political rhetoric and that's it.

While you assessment of Democrats and Republicans is also an exercise in fantasy, it exposes nativity.

To answer your question about protestors, I refer you to the 1968 RIOTS IN THE STREETS of Chicago during the Democratic convention.

I would hope that some posters stop revising history to fit their narrative. There are enough real things to discuss without making things up or leaving things out.
.

He lied about sex...pure and simple. And yes the Democratic National convention did see rioting in the streets. What happened yesterday at a Trump rally is completely different.

[Guest]

He lied about sex...pure and simple. And yes the Democratic National convention did see rioting in the streets. What happened yesterday at a Trump rally is completely different.

Not sure what you are speaking of ? I know about the disruption but was responding to a post on impeachment !!

Did I miss something ?

Listen, the groups are out there and will interrupt. It is not reserved for Trump at all.

Again will just keep quiet because I have NO earthly idea why your brought that up. It happened and there will be more. Black Lives Matter has said so and been encouraged, not to interrupt, but to continue on their way by the President. It will happen to both parties and all candidates.

BOTH parties have histories and if someone feels it is worthwhile to bring those histories up, so be it.....I don't see the point at all.

[Guest]

AND by the way.......

I would not have posted except the poster who wrote about impeachment was so wrong and so far off base, it needed to be corrected.

[Guest]

Not sure what you are speaking of ? I know about the disruption but was responding to a post on impeachment !!

Did I miss something ?

Listen, the groups are out there and will interrupt. It is not reserved for Trump at all.

Again will just keep quiet because I have NO earthly idea why your brought that up. It happened and there will be more. Black Lives Matter has said so and been encouraged, not to interrupt, but to continue on their way by the President. It will happen to both parties and all candidates.

BOTH parties have histories and if someone feels it is worthwhile to bring those histories up, so be it.....I don't see the point at all.

Here is the link....

Video Shows Immigration Protester Dragged Across The Ground And Kicked At Trump Rally | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2015/10/24/3715850/video-shows-immigration-protester-dragged-across-the-ground-and-kicked-at-trump-rally/)

This student was kicked by attendees while the crowd chanted USA USA USA

[Guest]

Here is the link....

Video Shows Immigration Protester Dragged Across The Ground And Kicked At Trump Rally | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2015/10/24/3715850/video-shows-immigration-protester-dragged-across-the-ground-and-kicked-at-trump-rally/)

This student was kicked by attendees while the crowd chanted USA USA USA

Well, I am sure not going to vote for those guys !!!!

Thanks for the link, but I try and avoid THINK PROGRESS at all costs. I try and avoid any website sponsored and run by any political party that is not a news site like this one.

But, still thanks for the concern and effort.

Please explain your point. Does it not reflect poorly on those who insist on being rude. We have rights to protest, but whether it be Republican or Democrat, rude behavior like this is just plain stupid.

We are still a country of laws.

Note in the article by an arm of the Democratic party...

" At one point, he appeared to endorse the use of violent tactics against these protesters."


I am nowhere near a Trump supporter, but do support good behavior and law.

[Guest]

Did Bush torture?

Bush did not.

[Guest]

I'm sure you are MORE (or less) knowledgeable than the committee that hammered Hilary for 11 hours to NO avail!....Give it up.. and get ready for the First Female President:BigApplause:

You are obviously ignorant and should refrain from posting until you understand what is being discussed.

No one "hammered Hilary" about her illegal use of an unauthorized server or her mishandling of classified material. That is an investigation being conducted by the FBI. And yes, I do know more than most in congress regarding the State Dept regulations and Federal Law pertaining to handling of classified material. I have briefed and debriefed cleared personnel as well as handled diplomatic pouch, and worked in a vaulted area (SCIF). I do know that she blatantly violated federal law and put national security at risk. Unlike you, I do not worship celebrity politicians, including the president. I took my job very seriously, unlike the casual attitude liberals have with America's national security.

[Guest]

OK so some are prepared to give her an 'A' for her PERFORMANCE!

What does that have to do with her being a liar, unethical, untrustworthy, self serving, crony politician.

Notice since the grilling she has given up her matron uniforms; lottsa more make up; laughs a lot trying to avoid the cackle; even takeing selfies with the little people. She is now in the fool as many as possible while the media isolates her from ANY negative commentary to get her numbers back up.

It is sorta like cleaning up Charles Manson, put him in a new suit, have him smile a lot, take selfies with everyone and have the media say what a great guy he is.

What do you have? The same Charles Manson!

What do we have? SAme old Clinton!

[Guest]

bush did not.

wrong

[Guest]

Water boarding IS torture....GW Bush authorized the use of water boarding so

Bush used torture..... Well documented.

[Guest]

You are obviously ignorant and should refrain from posting until you understand what is being discussed.

No one "hammered Hilary" about her illegal use of an unauthorized server or her mishandling of classified material. That is an investigation being conducted by the FBI. And yes, I do know more than most in congress regarding the State Dept regulations and Federal Law pertaining to handling of classified material. I have briefed and debriefed cleared personnel as well as handled diplomatic pouch, and worked in a vaulted area (SCIF). I do know that she blatantly violated federal law and put national security at risk. Unlike you, I do not worship celebrity politicians, including the president. I took my job very seriously, unlike the casual attitude liberals have with America's national security.

...and we should listen to a Federal employee drone, why? Weren't you slopping at the public trough for your 30 years producing absolutely no product?

[Guest]

...and we should listen to a Federal employee drone, why? Weren't you slopping at the public trough for your 30 years producing absolutely no product?

Despite your unsubstantiated, non relative personal attack, maybe just maybe because he knows what he is talking about.

And why would you talk in such a disparaging, sleazy way about ALL government workers ?

SO...why should we listen to a person who demonizes a group of people in such an offensive and stupid manner ?

[Guest]

Water boarding IS torture....GW Bush authorized the use of water boarding so

Bush used torture..... Well documented.

Bush did NOT torture. You asked if Bush tortured anyone. He didn't. And beside, I really don't care. We've been using means of torture throughout history to get information and water boarding was the least harmful of the ones that I know of. And yes, they did torture in Vietnam. And who's war was that? If you think that water boarding is something, then you should see what hatpins under the thumb nail is like, or electric shock from a crank telephone, or throwing one of two prisoners out a helicopter door. But, nice diversion. Liberals will do anything to divert from the topic when it does not bode favorable for them.

Most of America would give just about anything to swap our Obama for a return to Bush. If you don't believe me, check the polls.

[Guest]

...and we should listen to a Federal employee drone, why? Weren't you slopping at the public trough for your 30 years producing absolutely no product?

Yes, we have seen your "product" as you were flipping them at Burger King and asking "would you like fries with your burger?" :1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Guest]

Bush did NOT torture. You asked if Bush tortured anyone. He didn't. And beside, I really don't care. We've been using means of torture throughout history to get information and water boarding was the least harmful of the ones that I know of. And yes, they did torture in Vietnam. And who's war was that? If you think that water boarding is something, then you should see what hatpins under the thumb nail is like, or electric shock from a crank telephone, or throwing one of two prisoners out a helicopter door. But, nice diversion. Liberals will do anything to divert from the topic when it does not bode favorable for them.

Most of America would give just about anything to swap our Obama for a return to Bush. If you don't believe me, check the polls.

You have lost all credibility....you admit that the Bush Administration used torture during the middle east war. The United States signed at least 2 treaties against torture which we turned around and violated.

You know he tortured but you just don't care....your bad.

If the population wanted to return to the Bush era they would not have elected Obama twice.

[Guest]

You have lost all credibility....you admit that the Bush Administration used torture during the middle east war. The United States signed at least 2 treaties against torture which we turned around and violated.

You know he tortured but you just don't care....your bad.

If the population wanted to return to the Bush era they would not have elected Obama twice.

I am conflicted on this subject frankly.

It is easy at this time to be all holier than thou about it, and "Monday Morning Quarterback" everything that happened at that time, in those years.

I am shocked as well and certainly do not condone torture.

BUT, I also have recall of how our country felt on Sept 12, 2001. I recall the mood of our country for years after these attacks, and I WILL NEVER LOSE THAT FEELING.

I do, however understand the condemnation of the practices.

I offer two links for everyone to read; In 2014, a report was declassified and the link below is from the NY Times on that report

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/world/cia-kept-bush-ill-informed-on-interrogation-tactics-torture-report-says.html

NPR also did a report which I attach.....

'Torture Report': A Closer Look At When And What President Bush Knew : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/12/16/369876047/torture-report-a-closer-look-at-when-and-what-president-bush-knew)

i think it is one of those issues that will NEVER be black and white...always be gray. Over the years it has become a political football, but interesting that the "football" is only mentioned by the minions on political forums and very seldom mentioned by politicians except in general tones.

I would never object to anyone criticizing nor defending any practices done at that time....I WILL NEVER FORGET HOW I FELT.

In any case, I do not see any substance now, except as a lesson from history.

This country and others violate many many agreements during administrations of both parties and we can only hope that due diligence was used by everyone involved.

Getting involved in this simply leads to analyzing drone strikes, etc.

[Guest]

You have lost all credibility....you admit that the Bush Administration used torture during the middle east war. The United States signed at least 2 treaties against torture which we turned around and violated.

You know he tortured but you just don't care....your bad.

If the population wanted to return to the Bush era they would not have elected Obama twice.

Bush did not torture. Perhaps someone did waterboard during his administration, but he didn't. You said he did. He didn't.

Now, as for torture in times of war. It has been going on behind the scenes throughout history. I am writing real slow so that you will be able to read it. Liberals are always protected, like they were by their mommies, and do not think that the world has any bad people in it.

Yes, I would torture a prisoner IF I thought I could save lives by doing so. Sorry if the offends your sensitivities, but that is life in the real world. If you think any other countries adhere to rules of war, then you are very, very naive.

So, get over it. Now, quit trying to divert from the theme of the thread. You do this all the time because you are ignorant of facts and have nothing to contribute to the conversation. In that case, you really should just sit back and read and learn.

Now, repeat after me "would you like fries with your burger?"

[Guest]

Water boarding IS torture....GW Bush authorized the use of water boarding so

Bush used torture..... Well documented.

SO???? What's that got to do with Clinton? Why don't you liberals stay on the topic and quit trying to set traps? Or, go back to your video games.

[Guest]

I am conflicted on this subject frankly.

It is easy at this time to be all holier than thou about it, and "Monday Morning Quarterback" everything that happened at that time, in those years.

I am shocked as well and certainly do not condone torture.

BUT, I also have recall of how our country felt on Sept 12, 2001. I recall the mood of our country for years after these attacks, and I WILL NEVER LOSE THAT FEELING.

I do, however understand the condemnation of the practices.

I offer two links for everyone to read; In 2014, a report was declassified and the link below is from the NY Times on that report

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/world/cia-kept-bush-ill-informed-on-interrogation-tactics-torture-report-says.html

NPR also did a report which I attach.....

'Torture Report': A Closer Look At When And What President Bush Knew : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/12/16/369876047/torture-report-a-closer-look-at-when-and-what-president-bush-knew)

i think it is one of those issues that will NEVER be black and white...always be gray. Over the years it has become a political football, but interesting that the "football" is only mentioned by the minions on political forums and very seldom mentioned by politicians except in general tones.

I would never object to anyone criticizing nor defending any practices done at that time....I WILL NEVER FORGET HOW I FELT.

In any case, I do not see any substance now, except as a lesson from history.

This country and others violate many many agreements during administrations of both parties and we can only hope that due diligence was used by everyone involved.

Getting involved in this simply leads to analyzing drone strikes, etc.

I appreciate your response....I too will never forget that feeling, one of my great nieces, who worked in the WTC, was missing for many hours after attack and my family feared she was gone.

My position on torture is forged by the fact I have family currently in the services, I would not want them to be tortured...when we don't torture at least we have the moral high ground. We have lost that.

[Guest]

Bush did not torture. Perhaps someone did waterboard during his administration, but he didn't. You said he did. He didn't.

Now, as for torture in times of war. It has been going on behind the scenes throughout history. I am writing real slow so that you will be able to read it. Liberals are always protected, like they were by their mommies, and do not think that the world has any bad people in it.

Yes, I would torture a prisoner IF I thought I could save lives by doing so. Sorry if the offends your sensitivities, but that is life in the real world. If you think any other countries adhere to rules of war, then you are very, very naive.

So, get over it. Now, quit trying to divert from the theme of the thread. You do this all the time because you are ignorant of facts and have nothing to contribute to the conversation. In that case, you really should just sit back and read and learn.

Now, repeat after me "would you like fries with your burger?"

Geezer, you are really out of it right now. Must be that "sun downing" effect with your dementia.

I could never learn facts from the likes of you and your geriatric Gang of Three.

As the head of his administration, Bush did torture people. It happened under his watch. Obama did not personally bin Laden but it happened on his watch.

Ooo, have your nurse change your soiled Depends.

[Guest]

I appreciate your response....I too will never forget that feeling, one of my great nieces, who worked in the WTC, was missing for many hours after attack and my family feared she was gone.

My position on torture is forged by the fact I have family currently in the services, I would not want them to be tortured...when we don't torture at least we have the moral high ground. We have lost that.

I understand where you are coming from, but our enemy does not respect weakness. Our enemies ALWAYS torture our military members that they capture. Now, they also behead them. Taking the moral high ground only makes you feel better. Sorry, but when you take on the job of winning a war, you have to get your hands dirty/bloody and if it requires you to do something that you find uncivilized, then buck up and do it to win. Otherwise, you put your fellow Americans lives in jeopardy. It's easy to take the moral high ground when you are safe at home, reaping the benefits of our military sacrifices. But, if I am in the field, I will do whatever it takes to ensure the safety of my comrades in arms. Americans at home don't really want to know what really goes on in war. They say they do, but when presented with the reality of war, they get nervous and scream.

It's also amazing to think that many liberals are high and mighty about the morality of warfare, and yet have no qualms over abortions or the butchery and sale of baby body parts. What a contradiction.

[Guest]

Geezer, you are really out of it right now. Must be that "sun downing" effect with your dementia.

I could never learn facts from the likes of you and your geriatric Gang of Three.

As the head of his administration, Bush did torture people. It happened under his watch. Obama did not personally bin Laden but it happened on his watch.

Ooo, have your nurse change your soiled Depends.

You are finally correct about something. You could never learn facts from the likes of me. That would take something you don't have.

Repeat the mantra "would you like fries with your order?"

[Guest]

I understand where you are coming from, but our enemy does not respect weakness. Our enemies ALWAYS torture our military members that they capture. Now, they also behead them. Taking the moral high ground only makes you feel better. Sorry, but when you take on the job of winning a war, you have to get your hands dirty/bloody and if it requires you to do something that you find uncivilized, then buck up and do it to win. Otherwise, you put your fellow Americans lives in jeopardy. It's easy to take the moral high ground when you are safe at home, reaping the benefits of our military sacrifices. But, if I am in the field, I will do whatever it takes to ensure the safety of my comrades in arms. Americans at home don't really want to know what really goes on in war. They say they do, but when presented with the reality of war, they get nervous and scream.

It's also amazing to think that many liberals are high and mighty about the morality of warfare, and yet have no qualms over abortions or the butchery and sale of baby body parts. What a contradiction.

I personally have never had an abortion and at my age that will never happen...as for the sale of baby body parts why don't you ask Ben Carson about his use of them?

I can not change my position on torture.....

[Guest]

Geezer, you are really out of it right now. Must be that "sun downing" effect with your dementia.

I could never learn facts from the likes of you and your geriatric Gang of Three.

As the head of his administration, Bush did torture people. It happened under his watch. Obama did not personally bin Laden but it happened on his watch.

Ooo, have your nurse change your soiled Depends.

I will try and be careful in how I respond.

You have NO idea as to whom you are replying to.

That is not a threat, but simply stated you make these references which many know of what you are speaking, but trust me,,,,,,,YOUR AIM IS TERRIBLE.

BE SURE with whom you are conversing, because you look silly a LOT and probably confuse many of those you are responding to.

[Guest]

It is oh so easy to pontificate about taking the "high ground" when there is no personal investment.

You have no idea what you would do in reality until such time as one is personally involved. Say a terrorist who has knowledge of your immediate family and their where abouts....after you have seen pictures of other people's family being beheaded and have good reason to belive yours could well be next.

Then we would see where the "high ground" really is.

And please save any response that would sound like it would not make a difference or there are alternatives or some other, safe in TV, no threat, no involvement, no risk response.

[Guest]

It is oh so easy to pontificate about taking the "high ground" when there is no personal investment.

You have no idea what you would do in reality until such time as one is personally involved. Say a terrorist who has knowledge of your immediate family and their where abouts....after you have seen pictures of other people's family being beheaded and have good reason to belive yours could well be next.

Then we would see where the "high ground" really is.

And please save any response that would sound like it would not make a difference or there are alternatives or some other, safe in TV, no threat, no involvement, no risk response.

Now i am confused.....

[Guest]

I personally have never had an abortion and at my age that will never happen...as for the sale of baby body parts why don't you ask Ben Carson about his use of them?

I can not change my position on torture.....

What does you having an abortion relate to the post?
What does Ben Carson have to do with Clinton?
What position on torture? And what does that have to do with Clinton?

[Guest]

I personally have never had an abortion and at my age that will never happen...as for the sale of baby body parts why don't you ask Ben Carson about his use of them?

I can not change my position on torture.....

I am not posting in defense of Dr Carson but as you surely know, he has answered this question and perhaps you should post it on here so everyone knows and your cryptic response which implies something bad would not hold much water.

[Guest]

This thread has spun completely out of control from the idea od the OP.

Instead of the sniping at each other's character, the character or lack of character of the candidates, just stick to the original concept of whether or not it would be feasible to bring about impeachment hearings for past transgressions if Hillary gets to be elected President.

The "face to face" rule has gone astray or vanished from this thread. I suggest all just dial it back, hit the "re-set" button, and move forward in a civil manner - and stay on topic.

I believe impeachment would only be called for in cases which happen while in the presidency. For things before, they would either have been resolved or not dealing with the current situation. For example, George Bush admitted to using cocaine in college. That was illegal but had nothing to do with being president.

[Guest]

This thread has spun completely out of control from the idea od the OP.

Instead of the sniping at each other's character, the character or lack of character of the candidates, just stick to the original concept of whether or not it would be feasible to bring about impeachment hearings for past transgressions if Hillary gets to be elected President.

The "face to face" rule has gone astray or vanished from this thread. I suggest all just dial it back, hit the "re-set" button, and move forward in a civil manner - and stay on topic.

I believe impeachment would only be called for in cases which happen while in the presidency. For things before, they would either have been resolved or not dealing with the current situation. For example, George Bush admitted to using cocaine in college. That was illegal but had nothing to do with being president.

I attempted to respond in post 22 to this while fixing some revisionist history and said and still feel this way....impeachment revolving around Obama or Hillary Clinton is all political speak and has not bearing on anything except for rock throwing political minions.

By the way, speaking of revisionist history, can you supply a credible link to Bush using cocaine ? I know of marijuana experimenting but the cocaine thing is new except on a few of the whacko websites.

We all know by his admission that Obama used cocaine or at least experimented with it.

But in any case, I still cannot understand why such a thread was begun. People are so far off the many issues in the world and picking up on whatever they read somewhere that somebody said that they can attack another on.

[Guest]

I attempted to respond in post 22 to this while fixing some revisionist history and said and still feel this way....impeachment revolving around Obama or Hillary Clinton is all political speak and has not bearing on anything except for rock throwing political minions.

By the way, speaking of revisionist history, can you supply a credible link to Bush using cocaine ? I know of marijuana experimenting but the cocaine thing is new except on a few of the whacko websites.

We all know by his admission that Obama used cocaine or at least experimented with it.

But in any case, I still cannot understand why such a thread was begun. People are so far off the many issues in the world and picking up on whatever they read somewhere that somebody said that they can attack another on.

Check back on a CNN article from 1999. Cannot link it with this iPad. Anyhow, it said basically that Bush - in 1999 - said through a spokesman that he had not done illegal drugs in over 25 years. That would be around 1974. No one cared then or cares now.

[Guest]

Check back on a CNN article from 1999. Cannot link it with this iPad. Anyhow, it said basically that Bush - in 1999 - said through a spokesman that he had not done illegal drugs in over 25 years. That would be around 1974. No one cared then or cares now.

ILLEGAL DRUGS....yes, but you said COCAINE. That was new to me except from some of the wild web sites. Common knowledge and admittance on marijuana ta, but you are correct...means nothing....just asked since you mentioned it and somehow differentiated it from admitance of cocaine use by our current President.

But, the thread is about impeaching Clinton and again...why this thread was begun I do not know.

What would be interesting would be if she is elected and as this period of Secy of State is unwinding on her, there are offenses found, or with the security thing. I do not think you can be impeached as President if you commit high crimes as Secy of State. Maybe some day that would be a great discussion.

We have so many issues on going in this world now that this discussion makes no sense.

[Guest]

What does you having an abortion relate to the post?
What does Ben Carson have to do with Clinton?
What position on torture? And what does that have to do with Clinton?

The start of this post was that Hillary Clinton should be impeached the first day she takes office. I just pointed out other presidents who could have been impeached. One example was GW Bush and torture.

What does Ben Carson have to do with Clinton?
What does you having an abortion relate to the post?

One person responded with how I as a "liberal have a stance on torture and accept abortions and fetal tissue use. I have never had an abortion and never will so that comment doesn't apply to me. And Ben Carson used fetal tissue when he was a doctor.

Hope this helps.....

[Guest]

I am not posting in defense of Dr Carson but as you surely know, he has answered this question and perhaps you should post it on here so everyone knows and your cryptic response which implies something bad would not hold much water.

He told Megan Kelly on Fox News the was never a reason to use fetal tissue. And yet:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carson-no-apologies-for-1992-fetal-tissue-research/

So he either lied or is a hypocrite...

[Guest]

He told Megan Kelly on Fox News the was never a reason to use fetal tissue. And yet:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carson-no-apologies-for-1992-fetal-tissue-research/

So he either lied or is a hypocrite...

Practicing some political skills!

[Guest]

He told Megan Kelly on Fox News the was never a reason to use fetal tissue. And yet:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carson-no-apologies-for-1992-fetal-tissue-research/

So he either lied or is a hypocrite...

With all due respect....

DID YOU EVEN READ YOUR LINK ?

It contradicts what you are trying to say. Please read it.

[Guest]

The start of this post was that Hillary Clinton should be impeached the first day she takes office. I just pointed out other presidents who could have been impeached. One example was GW Bush and torture.

What does Ben Carson have to do with Clinton?
What does you having an abortion relate to the post?

One person responded with how I as a "liberal have a stance on torture and accept abortions and fetal tissue use. I have never had an abortion and never will so that comment doesn't apply to me. And Ben Carson used fetal tissue when he was a doctor.

Hope this helps.....

Yes, it does. As a liberal diversion from the post....very convenient. I like how you threw in the blame Bush tactic. That seems to work very well as a diversion. But the question is, why do liberals go to such extremes to divert from the subject? Is it because they have no defense for bad or failed policies of this administration? Is it because their only viable candidate is so bad that they can't defend her? Or, are liberals just very miserable people?

[Guest]

He told Megan Kelly on Fox News the was never a reason to use fetal tissue. And yet:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carson-no-apologies-for-1992-fetal-tissue-research/

So he either lied or is a hypocrite...

This has nothing to do with the thread related to "Clinton impeachment."

[Guest]

This thread has spun completely out of control from the idea od the OP.

Instead of the sniping at each other's character, the character or lack of character of the candidates, just stick to the original concept of whether or not it would be feasible to bring about impeachment hearings for past transgressions if Hillary gets to be elected President.

The "face to face" rule has gone astray or vanished from this thread. I suggest all just dial it back, hit the "re-set" button, and move forward in a civil manner - and stay on topic.

I believe impeachment would only be called for in cases which happen while in the presidency. For things before, they would either have been resolved or not dealing with the current situation. For example, George Bush admitted to using cocaine in college. That was illegal but had nothing to do with being president.

Nice try, but your ignorance and lies about Bush are nothing more than an impotent attempt to divert.

[Guest]

Nice try, but your ignorance and lies about Bush are nothing more than an impotent attempt to divert.

Alright, ignore the part about Bush using cocaine back in his college days. It still stands on possible illegal things done before assuming the presidency are not grounds for impeachment. That is similar to an ex post facto law.

[Guest]

Alright, ignore the part about Bush using cocaine back in his college days. It still stands on possible illegal things done before assuming the presidency are not grounds for impeachment. That is similar to an ex post facto law.

Is there a statute of limitations on the federal law pertaining to blatantly mishandling of classified material, jeopardizing national security?

[Guest]

Is there a statute of limitations on the federal law pertaining to blatantly mishandling of classified material, jeopardizing national security?

I believe the time period is ten years from the date of the violation. The penalty is ten years imprisonment. I guess she could run her administration from behind bars, but the White House would be vacant during her term, other than tourist tours.

[Guest]

Is there a statute of limitations on the federal law pertaining to blatantly mishandling of classified material, jeopardizing national security?

obviously 24 hours or less!