re: #53 KGxvi

I’m going to take an unpopular position around here, but I don’t think Clinton’s impeachment was unwarranted.

He lied under oath in a deposition, which is a perversion/obstruction of justice, and accordingly, a violation of his oath of office to see the law is faithfully executed. I don’t care that it was “about an affair” - in fact, the nature of that affair, that he was having sex with a White House intern, makes it much worse (no, I don’t care if she was a consenting adult, the power disparity is the issue, we should have learned that in the decades since).

Was the Clinton impeachment motivated by partisanship? Sure. Were the Republicans hypocritical in their motivation? Yes, obviously. But ultimately, the merits of the case against Bill Clinton, with hindsight, probably weigh in favor of impeachment.

Ask yourself, if a governor or CEO today used their position of power to carry on an affair with an intern significantly younger than them, wouldn’t we expect them to be removed? So why is it different for Clinton?

Then you also would have been fine once it was clear Bush lied us into a war that he should have been impeached.

And you might have also considered Reagan be impeached for the whole Iran Contra mess.

Lying in order of magnitude.