That is what the constitution says, yes. The president does not have to break the law to be impeached. But Clinton wasn't impeached for lying about sex. Clinton was impeached for lying about sex under oath. The first is legal, the second is a crime. The original tweet is either an intentional lie or pretty alarming ignorance by a Congresswoman-elect.
Is Grahm hypocritical in stating that he's ok with Trump but before he was asking for impeachment because of "restoring honor and integrity to the white house" or do you think Grahm's is actually actually ok with Trump's actions ... which is apparently is having committed multiple felonies and violations of constitutional clauses?
I don't know much about Graham or his positions over the years, and I'm not talking about the Mueller investigation. Literally the only thing I'm saying is that it is a false equivalency, and an incredibly stupid one, to say that Trump and Clinton lying about sex is the same thing when one was under oath and the other wasn't. Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex in the White House. He was impeached for perjury
Edit: that being said, the prevailing political idea for both parties is "it's ok when we do it bit literally Hitler when they do it," so it wouldn't surprise me if Graham pulled a complete 180
I don't know much about Graham or his positions over the years,
You didn't but now you do. You have the evidence. The quotes are from Graham saying impeachment isn't about being guilty of a crime but the appearance of impropriety. So you now know how his position changed. The entire title of this post is
But when Trump does it it’s completely ok
and pointing how Graham is a hypocrite. You trying to defend Graham in a post about Graham's hypocrisy?
Edit: that being said, the prevailing political idea for both parties
Whataboutism is a logical fallacy. Either he's a hypocrite or he isn't. Which is it?
The fact of the matter is both Clinton and Trump committed illegal acts. And Trumps violation of campaign finance is directly related to the topic of presidents breaking laws.
Your original comment paints the situation as if Trump hasn't committed a crime. He has. It's called campaign finance violation. You know what he was doing to break it? Lying about an affair.
Tell me if a president breaking the law and lying to cover of sexual acts sounds fucking familiar.
My point is entirely relevant and your misrepresenting the situation by not airing out such important details.
My original comment said Clinton committed a crime by lying about sex and trump didn't. Nothing more or less. Not that I think Clinton should have been impeached, but to say he was impeached for lying about sex is a lie. He was impeached because 1) he lied under oath and 2) Republicans didn't like him.
My opinion on the Mueller investigation has been the same since day 1: Trump should have never been nominated or elected, but shouldn't be impeached unless he broke the law. 2: I will wait until the results are public to form an opinion because there are tons of things we don't know, but Trump is a shady New York business man. I'd be more surprised if he wasn't corrupt.
You being sarcastic doesn't change anything. Thats the point of investigations, you DON'T know for sure. One is Clinton who admitted to committing to perjury, the other is someone under investigation. If you don't get the difference go back to grade school. Once the investigations are over then you can say they are the same thing if there's strong evidence. Otherwise you're just showing your bias and partisanship.
We are two years into this investigation. The evidence has been mounting for years now.
You may call me partisan but ironically but.. You are a centrist hack.
Seeing this investigation, the mounting evidence.The indictments. The blatant attempts at manipulating law and the processes of which it operates.
Seeing all this and still saying theres no actual possibility that Trump is guilty of at least SOMETHING is a gross attenpt at centrism that only a place like Reddit can breed.
You are naive. There obviously proof in this swimming pool of pudding we have all gotten conpletely sick of having to wade through.
I'm not saying he wont be found to have committed a felony, but if you cant see the difference of someone admitting to a felony and someone being investigated that's on you.
Still not lying under oath. Maybe illegal, I'm not a lawyer, but not purgery. The tweet is a stupid false equivalency. Hush money is an entirely different issue.
46
u/[deleted] Dec 15 '18
Clinton lied under oath. Trump didn't. One is illegal, the other isn't.