Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[rogue06]

Clinto was impeached for lying to Congress, dopey!

Not. Even. Close.

He was impeached for committing perjury in court.

In the future please at least make some attempt to fail better.

[Sam]

Not. Even. Close.

He was impeached for committing perjury in court.

In the future please at least make some attempt to fail better.

A bit embarrassing. Clinton was impeached, in part, for "provid[ing] perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" formed by the Starr investigation, which was a continuation of the Whitewater investigation begun at Clinton's request. Clinton did not commit perjury in court but to a grand jury.

It's all immaterial, though, because lying under oath is lying under oath. Doesn't matter if it happens in court, in a deposition, or in congressional testimony.

--Sam

[Sam]

Than the house should have voted to impeach him on it. Did they?

Whether the House should have included perjury is a matter of debate -- not everything a President does that is corrupt or even illegal needs to be included in articles of impeachment. But Trump's alleged perjury to the Special Counsel fits into the articles of impeachment passed by the House, in any event.

Like Trump's decades of tax cheating, just because it's not mentioned in one particular place doesn't mean it didn't happen.

--Sam

[rogue06]

Yes, "credible:

1. capable of being believed; believable".

2. a credible statement. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/credible

Glad to see you are capable of looking up a word in the dictionary. I'm sure your 3rd grade teacher would be proud.

But who you have applied it to clearly demonstrates that while you certainly can copy pasta, comprehending has eluded you.

If that level of witnesses were brought into a courtroom the defense would never likely present a defense but would instead ask for a summary dismissal -- and almost certainly get it with the judge asking to speak to the prosecutor in his chambers after court so as to give him a dressing down.

[lilpixieofterror]

Whether the House should have included perjury is a matter of debate -- not everything a President does that is corrupt or even illegal needs to be included in articles of impeachment. But Trump's alleged perjury to the Special Counsel fits into the articles of impeachment passed by the House, in any event.

So let me get this straight, the Democrats are bypassing real crimes to charge Trump with for made up crimes to charge Trump with. I sure hope that made more sense in your head than saying it out loud.

Like Trump's decades of tax cheating, just because it's not mentioned in one particular place doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Your article is behind a paywall, but if Trump is such a tax cheat, why wasn’t he arrested and charged, in all those years? Here’s the funny thing Sam, if there was a case years before 2016, why didn’t the IRS or State of New York charge him for tax fraud?

[rogue06]

Whether the House should have included perjury is a matter of debate -- not everything a President does that is corrupt or even illegal needs to be included in articles of impeachment. But Trump's alleged perjury to the Special Counsel fits into the articles of impeachment passed by the House, in any event.

Like Trump's decades of tax cheating, just because it's not mentioned in one particular place doesn't mean it didn't happen.

--Sam

A pay wall prevents me from reading it but how many convictions for tax fraud does Trump have according to the article?

[Sam]

If you paid attention to what House Democrats have said regarding impeachment, the standard being used is that which rises to a national security risk, not merely that which is corrupt or illegal.

I would've thrown in the obstruction of justice charge regarding McGahn, myself, but reportedly even that got cut because adding it might affect ongoing litigation. So it was a judgment call.

But all that is a lot more knowledge-based inside baseball deliberation that requires having a pretty broad and deep reading over the past months -- more than what most folks here are interested in or perhaps even capable of.

--Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

A pay wall prevents me from reading it but how many convictions for tax fraud does Trump have according to the article?

It’s funny really, all these crimes that Trump is said to have committed, but nobody seem to have cared prior to 2016. I wonder why...

[seer]

Whether the House should have included perjury is a matter of debate -- not everything a President does that is corrupt or even illegal needs to be included in articles of impeachment. But Trump's alleged perjury to the Special Counsel fits into the articles of impeachment passed by the House, in any event.

No it doesn't Sam, that would be too open ended and vague. If He did clearly commit perjury the Dems would have included it, it would have been a charge that the American people could have understood instead of this mishmash with no definable crime. And Clinton also tampered with witnesses.

[lilpixieofterror]

If you paid attention to what House Democrats have said regarding impeachment, the standard being used is that which rises to a national security risk, not merely that which is corrupt or illegal.

I would've thrown in the obstruction of justice charge regarding McGahn, myself, but reportedly even that got cut because adding it might affect ongoing litigation. So it was a judgment call.

But all that is a lot more knowledge-based inside baseball deliberation that requires having a pretty broad and deep reading over the past months -- more than what most folks here are interested in or perhaps even capable of.

--Sam

And what National emergency happened to get Clinton impeached? If Trump lied, under oath, and you can prove it, it seems it could be done again. Got another excuse Sam? Democrats made up a crime and ignored a real one, why or was this perjury case yet another made up crime?

[Sam]

A pay wall prevents me from reading it but how many convictions for tax fraud does Trump have according to the article?

The article's been out for well over a year and got dozens of response articles in other papers. If you've used up your free NYT articles for the month, it shouldn't be hard to find a summary article on CNN, WaPo, or elsewhere.

Pretty crazy that people round here who gab about politics all day every day are ignorant of it, tho.

--Sam

[Sam]

No it doesn't Sam, that would be too open ended and vague. If He did clearly commit perjury the Dems would have included it, it would have been a charge that the American people could have understood instead of this mishmash with no definable crime. And Clinton also tampered with witnesses.

If you read the report related to the articles of impeachment, witness tampering is included in the obstruction of Congress article.

[seer]

If you paid attention to what House Democrats have said regarding impeachment, the standard being used is that which rises to a national security risk, not merely that which is corrupt or illegal.

Sam

A national security risk how and why? I watched most of the hearings, please explain...

[lilpixieofterror]

The article's been out for well over a year and got dozens of response articles in other papers. If you've used up your free NYT articles for the month, it shouldn't be hard to find a summary article on CNN, WaPo, or elsewhere.

Pretty crazy that people round here who gab about politics all day every day are ignorant of it, tho.

--Sam

So again:

Why didn’t anyone arrest and charge him, for tax fraud, if he was committing all these tax crimes?

[rogue06]

The article's been out for well over a year and got dozens of response articles in other papers. If you've used up your free NYT articles for the month, it shouldn't be hard to find a summary article on CNN, WaPo, or elsewhere.

Pretty crazy that people round here who gab about politics all day every day are ignorant of it, tho.

--Sam

From the above I guess it is fair to say that the answer to my question

how many convictions for tax fraud does Trump have according to the article?

is zero.

If there was even one conviction I'm sure you would have been glad to list it rather than give the response you did.