Originally Posted by Guest

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ssue-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.

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Guest

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ssue-research/

So he either lied or is a hypocrite...

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

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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!